Strong communities. Strong culture.

Stronger children.

The Family Matters

REPORT 2019
Measuring trends to turn the tide
on the over-representation of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children
in out-of-home care in Australia
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Family Matters – Strong communities.
Strong culture. Stronger children.
The Family Matters Report is a collaborative effort is Australia’s national campaign to ensure
of SNAICC – National Voice for our Children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
the Family Matters campaign, Griffith University,
children and young people grow up safe
University of Melbourne and Monash University.
and cared for in family, community and
AUTHORS culture. Family Matters aims to eliminate
Family Matters: Natalie Lewis, Richard Weston the over-representation of Aboriginal and
(National Co-Chairs) Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children: John Burton, home care within a generation (by 2040).
Janelle Young, Nadeshda Jayakody, Andria Mastroianni Family Matters is led by SNAICC –
University of Melbourne (Department of Social Work): National Voice for our Children and a
Wei Wu Tan and Arno Parolini group of eminent Aboriginal and Torres
Monash University: Aron Shlonsky Strait Islander leaders from across the
Griffith University: Clare Tilbury country. The campaign is supported by a
Strategic Alliance of over 150 Aboriginal
We acknowledge the Family Matters Leadership
Group, Jurisdictional Groups, and other Family Matters
and Torres Strait Islander and non-
campaign partners for their substantial contribution Indigenous organisations.
to this report. We acknowledge the children and
young people who generously contributed their hopes
for the future, contained throughout this report.

© SNAICC – National Voice for our Children.

Family Matters – Strong communities. Strong culture.
Stronger Children. is an initiative of SNAICC.

DESIGN: Mazart Design Studio

www.mazartdesignstudio.com
IMAGES: Sarah Francis, Rodney Start: Museums
Victoria, Awabakal.
PRINTER: Postscript Printing and Publishing, Eltham.

FAMILY MATTERS MAJOR FUNDERS

SNAICC thanks AbSec, Australian Communities
Foundation, BHP, KARI, Key Assets and Life Without
Barriers for their generous financial support to
develop this report.

SERVING CHILDREN, FAMILIES & COMMUNITIES

SERVING CHILDREN, FAMILIES & COMMUNITIES

SERVING CHILDREN, FAMILIES & COMMUNITIES

CONTENTS
03 FOREWORD BY THE FAMILY MATTERS CO-CHAIR

05 INTRODUCTION

07 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

09 KEY FINDINGS

14 THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT CARD 2019

18 COMMUNITY VOICES FROM ACROSS AUSTRALIA

24 FOCUS ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER-LED SOLUTIONS

26 FOCUS ON PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION

29 PART 1 CURRENT DATA AND TRENDS IN OVER-REPRESENTATION

IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
29 1.1 Overview
29 1.2 How over-representation occurs
30 1.3 Current situation and trends
38 1.4 Children in out-of-home care by 2028: An alarming projection of growing
over-representation
39 1.5 State and territory government responses to addressing data gaps and
actions to address the causes and growth of over-representation

49 PART 2 DATA ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY LEVEL FACTORS

49 2.1 Overview
50 2.2 Structural drivers of child protection intervention
53 2.3 Access to quality, culturally safe universal and targeted services

73 PART 3 PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND RESPECT FOR CULTURE

73 3.1 Compliance with the placement element of the Child Placement Principle
78 3.2 Cultural planning – compliance with the connection element of the
Child Placement Principle
80 3.3 Legislated and resourced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation-
compliance with the participation and partnership elements of the
Child Placement Principle

91 CONCLUSION AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

96 REFERENCES

100 APPENDICES
100 Appendix I: Projection of over-representation in out-of-home care by state and territory
102 Appendix II: Method for the projection scenario
102 Appendix III: Caveats for the projection scenario
103 Appendix IV: Method for the Report Card table

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 1

ABBREVIATIONS

AbSec NSW Child Family and Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation

ACCO Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organisation
AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ANC Antenatal care
APGR Annual population growth rate
ATSICPP Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
BBF Budget Based Funding
CCB Child Care Benefit (Child Care Subsidy as of July 2018)
COAG Council of Australian Governments
CSO Community Services Organisation
ECEC Early childhood education and care
IFSS Intensive family support service
MACS Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services
OOHC Out-of-home care
RoGS Report on Government Services
SEIFA Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
VACCA Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
FOREWORD by Family Matters Co-Chairs

The over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care
is a complex issue. It is a systemic phenomenon that continues to grow across the continuum
of statutory child protection involvement. Once again, this year’s report shows that our
children continue to enter statutory child protection systems at a greater rate, are more likely
substantiated, are admitted to orders at higher rates, stay longer and exit via reunification or
restoration far less frequently.
We have borne witness to this statistical norm for so data in this year’s report, and the well-documented
long that I fear many have become desensitised to the correlation between child protection involvement
realities that it represents for our children. At 30 June and the experience of long-term social disadvantage
2018, 20,421 of our children were living in out-of-home and over-representation in juvenile justice and adult
care, the majority of whom will go to bed tonight in criminal justice systems, tells us very clearly that the
a place that is not their own, disconnected from kin, current approach is failing.
Country and culture. This is unacceptable.
While our children and families continue to experience
Throughout this report, young people have told us increasing rates of homelessness or housing instability,
they want change, to feel connected to their families, these numbers increase.
communities and cultures. We call on Australian
While our women and children continue to experience
governments to listen to young people and work with
disproportionate rates of domestic and family violence,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and
these numbers will continue to grow.
their representatives to implement the evidence-based
strategies for change contained in this report. While we continue to dismiss structural and systemic
racism as figments of the Black imagination we will
Since the launch of last year’s Family Matters
continue to witness disparity and inequity in the lived
report, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
experience of our children and families.
continue to experience unacceptable levels of social
disadvantage, and poorer outcomes across every Until our children and families enjoy equitable access to
thematic area of the Child Rights Convention. These universal services and targeted supports we should not
numbers continue to escalate, due to insufficient expect these numbers to change.
attention and action by Australian governments to truly
Until governments and the service industry accepts
prioritise and actively pursue a child rights agenda.
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are
That’s what transforms systems and the lives of
best placed to lead and implement solutions we will
children.
continue to tell this same story in reports such as this,
The over-representation of our children in statutory for generations to come.
child protection systems is a litmus test for the success
The Family Matters Roadmap, released four years
or failure of broader social policy in Australia. The
ago, retains striking validity in the current context.
tendency to deflect responsibility for the safety and
It is rights-based, informed by evidence and we can
wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
also confirm, as a result of the analysis undertaken
children to states and territories on the basis of their
in the development of this report, is that it works.
role in the administration of statutory child protection
The Roadmap, augmented by recommendations
systems diverts our attention and focus to the wrong
presented in this report, articulates a framework
end of the continuum. The solution cannot be found
for what needs to be done.
there.
The building blocks provide a firm foundation for
The assumption that these systems, by virtue of their
achieving transformational change, addressing
involvement in the lives of our children, deliver the
structural and systemic reform and the promotion
optimal conditions for children to thrive is false. The
of programs and practice approaches that will

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 3

 enable a generation of children to grow up safe and
well, connected to kin, Country and culture. This is
not wishful thinking. We know that this works. In
jurisdictions that have embraced the Family Matters
Roadmap as a blueprint for reform, and importantly,
created the space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people, representative bodies and community-
controlled organisations (ACCOs) to lead the design
and delivery of reforms, we are seeing glimpses of the
change that we aspire to.
Through the work of the Family Matters campaign,
we have the distinct privilege to witness the strength
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
of care. Where children and families thrive together,
despite adversity. These are people and places that have
experienced healing and hope; pockets of brilliance
that do not capture the attention of research agendas,
or feature prominently in collections of literature
about what works. These approaches and the people
and communities that nurture them, are not visible
in the evidence base that shapes policy and dictates
investment. We are characterised too often as the
problem and not the solution. This must change.
This year’s Family Matters report puts a spotlight on
the amazing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
organisations across Australia that support our children
and families to be strong and healthy. These initiatives
include, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led early
intervention and prevention services in Queensland,
new models of kinship carer finding and support in the
Northern Territory, Aboriginal-led policy development
and service design in New South Wales, and delegation
of statutory authority to ACCOs in Victoria.
Natalie Lewis
Co-Chair, Family Matters
4 FAMILY MATTERS
We are seeing momentum in some states and
territories to adopt dedicated strategies to eliminate
the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care. In Queensland,
implementation of the Our Way strategy continues to
strengthen community-controlled service design and
delivery. In Victoria, through the Wungurilwil Gapgapduir:
Aboriginal Children and Families Agreement, we have
seen significant investment to support the transition
of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care to ACCOs.
Western Australia has recently announced its intention
to develop a new strategy, formed around the four
building blocks of the Family Matters campaign, to
reduce the over-representation of our children in care.
Family Matters has consistently called for this kind of
comprehensive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children’s strategy at the national level.
The Family Matters campaign, its leadership and
supporters, want to be a part of something that clears
a path for our children and lays the foundation for them
to excel, to disrupt, to innovate, to create, to lead and to
find their place. We want to invest our time, our energy
and our passion in their future and we cannot do that
by digging our heels in, claiming and justifying a role
in perpetuating their status quo. It is our collective
challenge for today and mandate for tomorrow.
Richard Weston
Co-Chair, Family Matters
INTRODUCTION
Family Matters – Strong communities. Strong culture. Stronger children. is Australia’s national
campaign to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people grow up
safe and cared for in family, community and culture. Family Matters aims to eliminate the
over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care
within a generation, by 2040.
The Family Matters reports set out what governments
are doing to turn the tide on over-representation
and the outcomes for children and their families.
The reports contribute to efforts to change the story
by explaining the extent of the problem and reporting
on progress towards implementing evidence-informed
solutions.
The Family Matters Roadmap (published separately)
proposes four inter-related building blocks,
underpinned by evidence and ethics, detailing the
systemic changes needed to achieve this aim:
All families enjoy access to quality,
culturally safe, universal and
targeted services necessary for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children to thrive
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people and organisations participate
in and have control over decisions
that affect their children
Law, policy and practice in child
and family welfare are culturally safe
and responsive
Governments and services are
accountable to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people
This year, Family Matters reports limited progress to
redress over-representation and the drivers of child
protection intervention. While some promising policies
and initiatives have been introduced, government
efforts continue to be broadly piecemeal and ineffective
in responding to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children, families and communities.
Currently, there are 20,421 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care, making them
37.3% of the total out-of-home care population. The
rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in
out-of-home care is 10.2 times that of other children,
and disproportionate representation continues to grow.
As detailed in this report, if the tide is not turned, we
project the population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children living in out-of-home care will more
than double in the next 10 years, and the level of
over-representation will also increase. Growth in the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-of-home care
population is higher than expected in previous years,
and as a result the trajectory over the next 10 years is
worse than was reported in last year’s Family Matters
report.
Government and community agree there is a problem.
The impacts of colonisation, past and present
discriminatory policies and practices, and persistent
social inequity, coupled with under-investment in
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-led
and controlled solutions, have created a legacy of
disproportionate child protection intervention in our
communities across Australia. This report reveals that
without substantial and coordinated responses that
embed the four building blocks of the Family Matters
campaign, progress towards achieving the campaign
goal will continue to be limited.
The report is structured in three parts:
1. Current data and trends in over-representation in
out-of-home care: In order to understand the extent
of the problem, it is important to detail the current
situation and trends in child protection intervention
in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children and their families. This part describes
data relating to children’s interactions with child
protections systems, and provides a projection of
how over-representation is likely to increase over the
next 10 years if current conditions are maintained.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 5
 The report also includes a description of the types of
child protection data that are publicly available; new
data provided by state and territory governments;
and key data gaps that need to be addressed to
properly gauge progress. It includes input provided
by governments on their efforts to eliminate over-
representation.
2. Data on economic, social and community level
factors: The causes of over-representation in out-
of-home care, both before and after child protection
intervention, are many and complex and relate to the
inter-generational trauma that has resulted from
discrimination and unjust intervention in Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander family and community
life. This part focuses on available data that reflect a
number of the drivers of over-representation and the
level of access to service supports that can address
these issues, as well as available data that measure
progress toward parity in child and family economic
and social circumstances.
3. Participation in decision-making and respect for
culture: Connection to culture is a human right
and proven to be critical to the safety and wellbeing
of Indigenous children across the world. In order
to effectively respond to the needs of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children and families,
and enable their cultural rights, government
must work alongside Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities and support their self-
determination in child protection matters. This
part examines indicators of participation and
partnership: resourcing Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander community-controlled agencies
and involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, families, representatives and agencies in
child protection policy design, decision-making and
system oversight. It explores the extent to which
our child protection systems support and maintain
cultural identity and connection for children.
Throughout this report, we consider government efforts
across all five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (referred to
as Child Placement Principle), which is the primary
principle in legislation and policy that safeguards
children’s cultural identity and connections, and seeks
to ensure self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples in child protection. The five
inter-related elements of the Child Placement Principle
(prevention, partnership, participation, placement and
connection) are discussed with a particular focus on
strategies and progress to drive early intervention and
prevention.
In addition to the three main parts of the report, the
Report Card measures progress to eliminate over-
representation, rating how each state and territory is
faring against the four Family Matters building blocks.
A positive change profiled in this year’s Report Card
Summary is that, while outcomes have not significantly
improved, policy settings have shown increased
6 FAMILY MATTERS
alignment with best practice across a number of
jurisdictions, in areas such as supporting community-
controlled approaches, building cultural safety of the
services system and increasing accountability for
reform. These instances of increased alignment with
the building blocks provide promise that with increased
and sustained efforts we can begin to turn the tide.
The report begins with a Community Voices section,
which captures how Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander community-controlled organisations and
Family Matters jurisdictional working groups believe
governments across Australia are advancing in their
efforts. In addition, there is a section showcasing
innovative solutions to tackle over-representation
that are led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled organisations across the country.
For the first time, Family Matters reached out to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people
across the country to seek their input to inform this
report. We asked young people what they thought
we could all be doing to support them to be happy,
healthy and connected. Their thoughtful responses
are contained throughout this report.
This year’s Family Matters report is also an opportunity
for us to exercise data sovereignty in the interpretation
of data related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children and families. Government interpretations of
data are often used in support of its own policy agenda
and servicing requirements (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016).
The report uses data to interpret current efforts to
address the over-representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care
from our standpoint, and to demand government
accountability. This year, as highlighted through The
Family Matters Report 2019, we are deeply concerned
by a number of changes to child protection data
reporting that weaken government transparency and
accountability towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples. Three jurisdictions – New South
Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, now exclude
children on third-party parental responsibility orders
(a form of permanent care) from their official out-of-
home care population counts. We have added these
data to the out-of-home care counts to reflect that
children on permanent care orders have been
removed from their primary carers and our
governments remain responsible to protect
their cultural rights and connections.
This year, the United Nations Committee on the Rights
of the Child reviewed Australia’s progress to respect,
protect and fulfil children’s rights. This report reflects
many of the findings of that review, reinforcing that the
federal, state and territory governments still have a long
way to go in fulfilling the rights of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and young people. It is crucial
that governments implement the recommendations of
this report in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people to ensure that our children grow
up safe and cared for in family, community and culture.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Develop a national comprehensive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s strategy that includes
generational targets to eliminate over-representation and address the causes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander child removal.
The Family Matters Roadmap, which has been developed through extensive review of the evidence, and
consultation with leading Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experts, provides a vision and clear direction
to inform a strategy for achieving fundamental change to policy and practice. The strategy is an overarching
approach that will support implementation and progress in achieving the recommendations that follow, in
alignment with the building blocks for change.

Building Block 1
All families enjoy access
to quality, culturally safe,
universal and targeted
services necessary for
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children
to thrive
Building Block 2
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people and
organisations participate
in and have control over
decisions that affect their
children
2. Establish a target and strategy to increase investment in universal and targeted
early intervention and prevention services, including family support and
reunification services, with a focus on community-led initiatives.
3. Establish a target and strategy to increase access to preventative early years
services in early childhood education and care (ECEC), maternal and child health,
and family support, including investing in quality Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander community-controlled integrated early years services through a
specific program with targets to increase coverage in areas of high Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander population and high levels of disadvantage.
4. Prioritise investment in service delivery by community-controlled organisations in
line with self-determination. Investment should reflect need and be proportionate
to the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families within child
protection systems.
Note: Further recommendations to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
child, family and community participation in decisions for children are integrated
throughout all Family Matters report recommendations.

Building Block 3
Law, policy and practice
in child and family welfare
are culturally safe and
responsive
5. An end to legal orders for permanent care and adoption for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children, replaced by a focus on supporting the permanence
of their identity in connection with their kin and culture.
6. Adopt national standards to ensure family support and child protection legislation,
policy and practices are in adherence to all five elements of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, including requirements for:
a. increased representation of families, children and communities at each stage
of the decision-making process
b. increased investment in reunification
c. increased efforts to connect children in out-of-home care to family and culture.

Building Block 4
Governments and
services are accountable
to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people
7. Establishment and resourcing of roles and bodies that enable participation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in policy and service design and in the
oversight of systems impacting their children, including state-based and national
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s commissioners.
8. Development and publication of data to better measure the situation of the over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in child protection
systems. As a priority we call on all jurisdictions to address gaps in the data that
they provide for each Family Matters report as outlined in this report.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 7

 About the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Placement Principle
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle aims to:
• ensure an understanding that culture underpins
and is integral to safety and wellbeing for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children in child protection
and out-of-home care systems
• recognise and protect the rights of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children, family members
and communities in child welfare matters
• increase the level of self-determination of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
in child welfare matters
• reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in child protection
and out-of-home care systems.

The five elements of the Child Placement Principle:

Prevention: Protecting children’s rights to grow up in

family, community and culture by redressing the causes
of child protection intervention.
Partnership: Ensuring the participation of community
representatives in service design, delivery and
individual case decisions.
Placement: Placing children in out-of-home care in
accordance with the established Child Placement
Principle placement hierarchy:
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander relatives
or extended family members, or other relatives
and family members, or
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members
of the child’s community, or
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-
based carers.
If the above preferred options are not available, as a
last resort the child may be placed with:
• a non-Indigenous carer or in a residential setting.
If the child is not placed according to the highest
priority, the placement must be within close geographic
proximity to the child’s family.
Participation: Ensuring the participation of children,
parents and family members in decisions regarding
the care and protection of their children.
Connection: Maintaining and supporting connections
to family, community, culture and Country for children
in out-of-home care.
See SNAICC publication: Understanding and Applying
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement
Principle: A resource for legislation, policy and program
development (2017).

8 FAMILY MATTERS
KEY FINDINGS
1. CURRENT DATA AND TRENDS
IN OVER-REPRESENTATION
IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are
over-represented at virtually every decision-making
point in the child protection system that is currently
reported at the national level. Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children are far more likely than
non-Indigenous children to be notified, investigated,
substantiated, placed on a protection order, and
to reside in out-of-home care. Furthermore, the
disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and non-Indigenous children
have continued to increase dramatically for most
of these measures in recent years.
CURRENT RATES OF OVER-REPRESENTATION
In 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
were 10.2 times more likely to be residing in out-
of-home care than non-Indigenous children. This
national figure of over-representation is an all-time
high. Over-representation in out-of-home care varied
significantly between states and territories, and was
highest in Western Australia (17.8 times), Victoria (16.4
times), and the Australian Capital Territory (16.3 times).
While data are available on removal of children, a lack
of focus on supporting their safe reunification with
family is evident in the absence of publicly available
data to describe the rate at which Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children are reunified with their parents,
and the length of time they spend in out-of-home care
before reunification occurs.1 Four jurisdictions (ACT, NT,
SA and Vic.) provided data relating to reunification for
this report. Rates of reunification for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children were highest in the
Northern Territory, followed by Victoria, however,
the Northern Territory also had the highest
disparity, with non-Indigenous children significantly
more likely to be reunified than Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in 2017-18.
1 There is some national information available on the number of children exiting out-of-home care to reunification, but this information
cannot be used for many basic calculations. Most importantly, it cannot be used to calculate the length of time children spend in
OOHC because the bulk of the children who are in OOHC (those who are not reunified) are not included in these calculations.
PERMANENT CARE
In a number of states and territories, there have
been strong trends in policy and legislative reform to
increase the focus on, and expedite time frames for,
the use of long term, permanency-focused orders by
child protection authorities and the courts. The Family
Matters campaign is deeply concerned that current
approaches to permanency planning are not sufficiently
attuned to the reality that permanence for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children is developed
from a communal sense of belonging; experiences
of cultural connection; and a stable sense of identity
including knowing where they are from, and their
place in relation to family, mob, community, land and
culture (SNAICC – National Voice for our Children,
2016). Children on permanent care orders are at high
risk of losing vital cultural and family connections
given poor implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child Placement Principle nationally.
Across Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children are seven times more likely to be on a
third-party parental responsibility order than non-
Indigenous children. In New South Wales and Victoria,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are
over-represented on permanent care orders at rates
significantly higher than the national average. Notably,
well above the national average of eight per 1000
children, in New South Wales, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children were on third-party parental
responsibility orders at a rate of 14 per 1000 children.
PROJECTED GROWTH IN OVER-REPRESENTATION
There is strong reason to believe that the number and
proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in out-of-home care will continue to rise.
We used available estimates over the last seven years
of child protection data from the Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare combined with data from the
Productivity Commission Report on Government
Services to project future out-of-home care
population growth.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 9
 We predict that the population of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in out-of-home care will more
than double in size in the next 10 years by 2028, while
the non-Indigenous population of children in out-of-
home care will increase by more than 1.5 times. While
the growth in out-of-home care is alarming for both
populations, this projection presents a particularly
startling and disturbing picture of the future impacts
on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and
communities if we fail to effectively intervene now.
2. DATA ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
COMMUNITY-LEVEL FACTORS
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child wellbeing
includes their safety, health, culture and connections,
mental health and emotional wellbeing, home and
environment, learning and skills, empowerment
and economic wellbeing. Achievement of wellbeing
outcomes depends on a complex interplay between
individual (child), family factors and broader community
and societal factors, which means focusing on just
one wellbeing domain to the exclusion of others will
not lead to improvements in overall child wellbeing.
Ensuring children grow up safe and cared for requires
commitments and actions from families, communities,
and multiple service support sectors. There is strong
evidence that early care and environmental factors
have crucial impacts on later health and wellbeing, and
that interventions will be more effective the earlier in
the lives of children that they are applied. Whole-of-
population preventative measures and targeted early
intervention supports to improve family and community
safety and wellbeing can reduce child maltreatment.
Providing early intervention and prevention supports to
families has been shown to result in substantial social
and economic benefits for individuals, communities
and society.
Available data shows that while Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people are grossly over-represented
on measures of disadvantage that contribute to child
protection risks, they are also under-represented in
services that could respond and prevent entry to out-of-
home care. Service systems have also failed to enable
the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples in the design, delivery and decision-making
about service responses for their children.
a) Structural drivers of child protection
intervention
POVERTY
Numerous studies have indicated that poverty is
one of the major drivers of child protection system
involvement. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities, high rates of poverty stem from
experiences of colonisation, discrimination, forced child
removal and the inter-generational impacts of resulting
trauma (The Healing Foundation, 2013). The poverty line
10 FAMILY MATTERS
is defined according to when a household’s disposable
(after-tax) income falls below a threshold considered
to be adequate to provide the basic necessities of life
(Australian Council of Social Services, 2018). Analyses
of 2016 Census data demonstrates that nearly one in
three (31.4%) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people are living below the poverty line (Markham
& Biddle, 2018).
HOUSING
Access to safe and healthy housing environments has
a substantial impact on the capacity of families to
provide safe and supportive care for children. Housing
quality, affordability, location and appropriateness are
all important determinants of health and wellbeing.
Problems with housing – for example, homelessness,
mortgage and rental stress, and unstable housing
tenure – are indicative of the types of vulnerability and
risk that can lead to children coming to the attention
of child protection authorities (Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute [AHURI], 2012). Rental stress
is one measurement used to assess affordability and is
defined as paying more than 30% of household income
on rent payments (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS],
2018). The 2016 Census determined that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander householders are almost
twice as likely to experience rental stress.
The burden of homelessness on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples is reflected in their use of
specialist homelessness services across Australia.
In 2017-18, one in four (or 65,200) individuals who
accessed specialist homelessness services identified
as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2019a).
b) Access to quality, culturally safe universal
and targeted services
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
Inequity trajectories start early. Pregnancy, birth and
early childhood are critical transition periods for
families, especially mothers and infants, and present a
time of great opportunity for healthy growth, learning
and development, as well as to reduce vulnerabilities
associated with child protection notifications (Holland,
2015). Antenatal care is especially important for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who
are at higher risk of giving birth to pre-term and low
birth weight babies, and who have greater exposure
to other risk factors and complications such as
anaemia, poor nutrition, chronic illness, hypertension,
diabetes, smoking, and high levels of psychosocial
stressors (de Costa & Wenitong, 2009; Australian
Health Ministers Advisory Council, [AHMAC], 2012).
It is encouraging that the proportion of mothers
attending at least one antenatal care session in the
first trimester of pregnancy has risen between 2012
and 2017 from 50.5% to 62.9%. However, in 2017,
the age-standardised proportion of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander mothers who attended antenatal FAMILY VIOLENCE
care in the first trimester still remains lower than for
Research has suggested that Aboriginal and Torres
non-Indigenous mothers (by 7.8 percentage points,
Strait Islander children are at greater risk of being
62.9% compared with 70.7%, respectively). It is further
exposed to family violence than other children (Cripps,
concerning that data indicates the gap between
Bennett, Gurrin & Studdert, 2009; Mouzos & Makkai,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-
2004). The harm for children who are exposed to
Indigenous child mortality rates has been rising since
violence can be complex and profound and can include
2015, with rates for 0 to 4 year olds 2.41 times higher
witnessing violence (Goddard & Bedi, 2010); being used
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
or blamed for the violence; and being involved in trying
to stop the violence (Humphreys, 2007). Family violence
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE
is a major issue driving involvement with the child
The formative years of a child’s life are a critical protection system in Australia. In 2017-18, emotional
predictor of their successful transition to school and abuse, which includes exposure to family violence,
life-long education, health, wellbeing and employment was the most common type of substantiated harm
outcomes (Fox et al., 2015). While all children benefit for all children (AIHW, 2019d).
from high quality early learning programs, the benefits
are greater for children experiencing vulnerability DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
(Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). As reported last year for 2016-
Research demonstrates that parental substance
17, in 2017-18 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
misuse is one of the most commonly identified risk
children are now as likely to attend preschool as their
factors for child abuse and neglect (Australian Institute
non-Indigenous peers. However, there is no reliable
of Family Studies, 2017). Although data are collected
data about the duration and intensity of children’s
about parental substance use identified as contributing
engagement with preschool. There are still striking
to neglect and abuse by some jurisdictions, data
disparities in access to Commonwealth-funded services
are not routinely collected or published, either as
such as long day care, family day care and out-of-school
the primary factor or as co-occurring with domestic
hours care. In 2017-18, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
and family violence and/or parental mental illness
Islander children aged 0 to 5 continue to attend these
(Frederico, Jackson, & Dwyer, 2014). In 2017-18, there
services at half the rate (50%) of their non-Indigenous
was a steady increase in the over-representation of
peers. Expert analysis has identified that the newly
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in use of
introduced childcare subsidy system, with its focus on
treatment services, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
parental workforce participation, is likely to exacerbate
Islander people being 7.2 times as likely to access
inequality, and runs counter to international research and
treatment, up from 6.5 in 2016-17. It is important
best practice which points to the provision of low-cost
to note that the available data does not detail the
and easily accessible services focused on child needs.
quality and effectiveness of available services, nor
the prevention and treatment strategies that work
EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES
best for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
Provision of early intervention supports to families is (Snijder & Kershaw, 2019).
one of the major strategies used to improve outcomes
for vulnerable children and families, and is one of the MENTAL HEALTH
core strategies described in the National Framework
There is now a significant body of literature
for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (Council
documenting the factors influencing the social
of Australian Governments [COAG], 2009). However,
and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres
in 2017-18, proportional investment in child protection
Strait Islander communities, including structural
remains at the same level as the past three years
disadvantages experienced across the social
– only 17% of overall child protection funding was
determinants of health, including education,
invested in support services for children and their
employment, discrimination and racism (Calma,
families. This amounts to just under $1 billion as
Dudgeon, & Bray, 2017). Parental mental illness,
compared to over $4.8 billion, or 83%, of funds spent
particularly when untreated, can adversely impact on
on child protection intervention and out-of-home
the quality and consistency of care provided to children
care services. However, over a longer period, family
(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2010). The most
support expenditure decreased relative to expenditure
recently available data from 2016-17 indicates that
on out-of-home care and child protection. Although
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were
quality data is not available on the full range of family
over three times more likely than the non-Indigenous
support services, data does show that just under 3%
population to use state and territory governments’
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
specialised public mental health services (Steering
commenced an intensive family support service in
Committee for the Review of Government Service
2017-18 across five states and territories where data
Provision [SCRGSP], 2019). This was the case for people
were available, a rate well below their rate of contact
residing in regional, remote and very remote areas, and
with child protection services.
in lower socio-economic areas. The over-representation

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 11

 of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in acute
mental health services suggests that individuals are
accessing support in times of crisis. It is important to
note that most of these services address the symptoms
of mental health issues and not the underlying
structural and individual factors that contribute
to distress.
3. DATA ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES
STRAIT ISLANDER PARTICIPATION
AND CONNECTION TO CULTURE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLACEMENT ELEMENT
OF THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER CHILD PLACEMENT PRINCIPLE
The Child Placement Principle is comprised of five
elements (prevention, placement, participation,
partnership and connection) and is designed to serve
as a framework for holistic, best practice response for
families in contact with child protection systems. The
principle is often narrowly interpreted as a hierarchy
of placement options for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care. In relation to the
placement element, the rate of placement of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children with family and kin
or other Indigenous carers has continued to drop from
74.8% in 2006 to 64.5% in 2018. The rate of placement
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers
(excluding non-Indigenous family and kin) has dropped
even more steeply. In one year alone, this rate dropped
from 49.4% in June 2017 to 45% in June 2018.
PARTICIPATION IN CHILD PROTECTION
DECISION-MAKING
Participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples in decisions that affect them is a core
human right (UN General Assembly, 2007) and is
recognised as critical to decision-making that is
about the best interests of children from a cultural
perspective (Committee on the Rights of the Child,
2009). Best practice requires that participation be
enabled for children, their families, and their broader
communities. In relation to child participation, model
legislation should ensure, according to the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, that the
“child’s views are solicited and considered including
decisions regarding placement in foster care or homes,
development of care plans and their review, and visits
with parents and family” (Committee on the Rights of
the Child, 2009b, p. 13).
There have been no significant changes to legislation
across Australia in the last year to improve
requirements for participation. Queensland’s legislation
remains the most comprehensive in the country in
terms of meaningfully supporting the participation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, families
and communities, and Victorian legislation is also
closely aligned to this purpose. Notably, legislation
in both of these states provides for the delegation of
12 FAMILY MATTERS
statutory powers to Aboriginal community-controlled
organisations (ACCOs), creating the potential for
enabling higher levels of self-determination and
meaningful participation in child protection matters.
However, only Victoria has exercised this power to date.
Following Queensland’s successful trial of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision-making
in 2016-17, the Queensland Government has rolled
out a Family Participation Program across the state,
commencing in 2018 and providing funding to 15
ACCOs to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families to participate in child protection decision-
making. Victoria continues its long-standing statewide
program, which has strong involvement by ACCOs.
A model of family group conferencing was successfully
trialled in the Australian Capital Territory in partnership
with Curijo, an Aboriginal business. Preliminary
data provided by the Australian Capital Territory
Government indicates that between November
2017 and May 2019, family group conferences were
held in relation to 65 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children. Forty-four of those children were
successfully prevented from entering care.
As well as participation in individual case decisions,
genuine participation further requires that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples, through their
representatives, are able to participate in policy
development, service design and oversight of the
systems and services that impact on the safety and
wellbeing of children. At the state and territory level,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation has
been strengthened where comprehensive strategies
for reform have been developed in collaboration
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders,
particularly in Queensland and Victoria through the
Our Way and Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Aboriginal
Children and Families Agreement strategies,
respectively.
No progress has been made in the appointment of a
national commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and young people. There
are four states that have a position identified for an
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person in the role
of commissioner for children or assistant commissioner
¬– Victoria, the Northern Territory, South Australia and
Queensland – with only Victoria and South Australia
supporting the operation of a dedicated commissioner
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
young people.
INVESTMENT IN ABORIGINAL AND TORRES
STRAIT ISLANDER COMMUNITY-CONTROLLED
SERVICES
International and Australian evidence strongly supports
the importance of Indigenous participation and
self-determination in service design and delivery to
achieving positive outcomes for Indigenous children
and families (Cornell & Taylor, 2000; Denato & Segal,
2013; Chandler & Lalonde, 1998). Enabling the role
and capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
organisations is not only important for effective
service delivery, but an important policy objective in
its own right in so far as it promotes local governance,
leadership and economic participation, building
social capital for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples (Australian National Audit Office [ANAO], 2012).
This year, four jurisdictions provided data on investment
in community-controlled service delivery (ACT, NT, Qld,
WA).
The Australian Capital Territory provided data on
expenditure on family support services only, of which
6% went to one ACCO to support child, youth and
family service programs in 2017-18, and in 2018-19.
Queensland had by far the highest proportional
investment in community-controlled services of
all jurisdictions providing data. In Queensland,
community-controlled services received 14% of funding
spent on child protection, out-of-home care and
family support and intensive family support services in
2017-18, and 13.5% in 2018-19. In Western Australia,
12% of child protection funding was reported as being
expended on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled services – though notably this
figure is significantly inflated and non-comparable to
other jurisdictions as it was provided as a proportion
of funding to external agencies, rather than as a
proportion of total expenditure. Despite significant
government commitments to increase the role of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-
controlled child protection and family support services,
data indicates that service delivery in the Northern
Territory continues to be dominated by non-Indigenous
providers. Overall, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
agencies in the Northern Territory received just 2.4% of
funding spent on child protection, out-of-home care and
family support services – 1.8% of family support funding
(a decrease of 5.2% since 2016-17) and 0.3% of child
protection funding (a decrease of 10.7% since 2016-17).
THE STATE AND TERRITORY REPORT
CARD
The fold out Report Card on the following pages
identifies state and territory trends across a number
of indicators aligned with the four building blocks
of the Family Matters Roadmap. Although little
improvement is observable in the overall outcomes
data, the Report Card shows that a number of states are
demonstrating improvement and commitment to align
policies, programs and investments with the Family
Matters building blocks. Again this year, Victoria and
Queensland scored comparatively high on the report
card. Those states demonstrated their commitment to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation and
accountability with strong investments in Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled child
and family services and continued implementation
of long-term strategies for change – strategies that
are led and overseen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander organisations and people. Victoria and
Queensland also demonstrated outcomes against key
indicators with Queensland having the lowest rate of
over-representation in out-of-home care nationally,
and Victoria having the highest rate of children placed
with kin and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
carers. Some states regressed on their report card
assessment. In Tasmania the large numbers of
children reported with an unknown Indigenous status
meant that key data could not be reported and this has
raised many questions as to whether services provided
are recognising and responding to children’s cultural
needs. In New South Wales, key gaps in transparency
and genuine consultation with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people were reported, and permanent
legal orders that risk severing cultural and family
connections for children continue to be used at a rate
significantly higher than the national average.
CONCLUSION
In 2019, the Family Matters report again reveals
that across almost all indicators, the outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
their families are getting worse. While there are some
encouraging new policy commitments, and early stage
reforms, we know that far greater and more decisive
action is needed to arrest the crisis in child protection
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
The response remains inconsistent and piecemeal,
and as a result, most of our key recommendations are
the same as last year. We need a significant coordinated
national response if we are to achieve the extent of
change required. Through the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG), all governments must commit
to a national strategy and generational target to
eliminate over-representation in out-of-home care
and address the causes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander child removal.
We need clear and comprehensive public data,
accountability mechanisms, jurisdictional-based
strategies (both national and state/territory), and
appropriate investment targeted towards prevention.
Most importantly, we need engagement with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies, community-
controlled services and community representatives
to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led
co-design of policy and its implementation on the
ground.
Once the critical importance of culture and self-
determination is recognised, and once investment
follows that recognition, we can then begin to co-create
a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children can thrive.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 13
 Strong communities. Strong culture.
Stronger children.

The Family Matters

REPORT CARD 2019

COLOUR GUIDE
Very poor
Poor
Promising/improving
Stronger practice/outcomes

ABBREVIATIONS
OOHC: out-of-home care
ACCO: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organisation
ATSICPP: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle

14 FAMILY MATTERS
 Headline
indicator Building Block 1
Over- Universal and targeted services
representation
in OOHC (rate)
• Third highest rate of over-representation in OOHC
ACT
16.3 • Pilot program for family support delivered by an ACCO,
with promising early outcomes
• Comparatively high rate of pre-school attendance
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• Third lowest proportional investment in family support
and intensive family support (13.4%)
• Comparatively high rate of pre-school attendance
NSW
10.5 • Highest expenditure per child in the population on
intensive family support services, but reported limited
engagement with ACCOs in design and delivery
• Commitment of 30% targeted early intervention funds
to ACCOs, but lack of plan for achievement
Building Block 2
Participation, control
and self-determination
• Pilot of family group conferencing for Aborigin
with $1.44m funding committed for four years
promising early outcomes
• Low investment in ACCOs for child protection
(0%) and family support (6%)
• Some input to policy design by independent Ab
and Torres Strait Islander review
• Dedicated Aboriginal children’s peak body fun
policy and sector development roles
• Developed some key policies with the state Ab
peak, but implementation is lacking
• Significant legislation, policy and practice refo
progressed with community representatives re
very limited consultation and partnership

• First of eleven planned new Child and Family Centres • Limited roles and resources for ACCO service
NT
11.5 built in Tenant Creek
• Lowest rate of attendance in government approved
child care and preschool
and participation (2.4% of expenditure)
• No dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islan
peak body for children
• Second highest proportional investment in family • No territory-wide model for representative org
support and intensive family support (23.9%) or family participation in case decisions
• Over-representation in OOHC above national average
• Continued funding of $33.3m annually to 33 ACCO • Legislation recognises self-determination, app
QLD
8.5 family wellbeing services across the state
• Lowest rate of over-representation nationally
• Third highest proportional investment in family
ATSICPP’s five elements across the Act & requ
Independent Entity facilitates family participat
• Highest reported funding by far to ACCOs, incl
support and intensive family support (16.4%) 15 Family Participation Program providers
• First 1000 Days initiative with two ACCOs and eight early • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak role
childhood development coordinators in ACCOs strategy, policy co-design & sector developme
• Over-representation in OOHC above national average • Family Group Conferencing being established
SA
10.4 • Community voices note the inclusion of community in
design of the state early intervention strategy
• Comparatively low child care attendance
focus on cultural safety, but not led by ACCOs
• Target for increased procurement from Aborig
organisations in 2019-20 (0.05% to 3%)
• High investment in intensive family support per child • No dedicated peak body for Aboriginal and Tor
and high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Strait Islander children
Islander children commencing a service
• Rate of over-representation not transparent due to • Lack of formal and funded ACCO roles in child
TAS
- deficiencies in identification of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children
• Continued trial of Intensive Family Engagement Service
protection, beyond family support trial
• No Aboriginal peak for children and families o
policy development roles for ACCOs
with Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation • No statewide models for community represen
• Second lowest proportional investment in family or family participation in case decisions
support and intensive family support (13.1%)

• Second highest rate of over-representation in OOHC
VIC
16.4 • Community sector voices cite low funding to ACCOs
for prevention focused services
• Lowest rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children commencing intensive family support
• Highest proportional investment in family support
and intensive family support (27.1%)
• Highest over-representation in OOHC nationally
WA
17.8 • By far lowest proportional investment in family support
and intensive family support (4.8%)
• Promising new investments including: $20.7m over
three years for ACCOS to deliver in-home family
supports and 17 new intensive family support services
delivered in partnership with ACCOs
• 46% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ch
in care case managed by ACCOs at June 2019
– a 250% increase since 2017
• ACCOS resourced for policy input, advice on ca
decisions, kinship care finding, cultural planni
and to facilitate family decision-making
• Continued expansion of delegated statutory fu
to ACCOs for children in OOHC
• Limited role for ACCOs in OOHC case managem
supporting only approximately 6% of children
• No peak body role, but some funding to the No
Family Safety and Wellbeing Council for input
• No state-wide models for community represen
family participation in case decisions

* The methodology for development of the Report Card table is described in Appendix IV
 Building Block 3
Culturally safe and responsive systems
nal families • Improved placement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
s and Islander carers in one year (38.6% to 41.2%)
• Review of Aboriginal children in OOHC with some
& OOHC reform recommendations progressed
• Provision of ATSICPP training to front line workforce
boriginal in line with Our Booris, Our Way recommendation
• Low investment in ACCO service provision
nded for • Large drop in placement with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander carers in one year (63.6% to 52.5%)
boriginal • Highest rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children on permanent care orders and adopted
orms • Aboriginal commissioning approach in development
eporting to increase investment in Aboriginal led solutions
• Some investment in ACCO OOHC case management
delivery • Lowest placement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander carers (33.3%) (excluding Tasmania)
nder • New model for Aboriginal kinship care developed in
partnerships with Tangentyre Council and kinship
ganisation carer finding and support pilots through three ACCOs,
and a partnership with Yolngu community
• Highest reunification relative to admissions to OOHC
plies • Second lowest placement with Aboriginal and Torres
uires Strait Islander carers (36.9%) (excluding Tasmania)
tion • Legislation includes all five ATSICPP elements and
luding allows for delegation of all powers and functions to
ACCOs, though delegations are yet to commence
es in • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak roles in
ent strategy, policy co-design and sector development
with a • Adopted new Aboriginal Action Plan 2019-20 in
alignment with the five elements of the ATSICPP
ginal • Relatively low rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children on permanent care orders
rres • Comparatively low reunification rate relative to
OOHC care admissions
• Implemented cultural capability training for all staff
d • High numbers of children in contact with child protection
with unknown Indigenous status
or identified • Not possible to accurately determine rate of placement
with kin this year, though rate was consistently low for
ntative the previous four years
• Consulting on a permanency framework with a focus on
the five elements of the ATSICPP
hildren • Increase in cultural plan completion, however only 33%
of children had approved plans in March 2019
• Second highest rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
ase Islander children on permanent care orders
ing • Highest and increasing placement with kin and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers (78%)
unctions • High reunification rate relative to OOHC admissions
ment, • Only one ACCO funded to provide OOHC services
• Second highest rate of placement with Aboriginal
oongar and Torres Strait Islander carers (46.9%)
to policy • Lower rates of permanent care orders than most
ntative/ jurisdictions and policy review to focus on stability
needs of each child rather than mandate legal
permanency
Building Block 4
Accountability
• Review of Aboriginal children in OOHC overseen by
Aboriginal steering committee, with some reform
recommendations progressed
• No dedicated Commissioner or peak body for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• Broad commitment and partnership through ACT
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Agreement
• Independent review of Aboriginal children in OOHC
completed and awaiting report publication
• Provided very limited data to inform this report
• No dedicated Commissioner for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children despite sector calls
• No dedicated and monitored strategy to address
over-representation
• Reforms input and guidance through an Aboriginal
chaired tripartite forum with ACCO representation
• No dedicated Commissioner or peak body for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children
• Implementing the five year, Safe, Thriving and Connected
strategy to improve outcomes for vulnerable children
• Continued implementation of the Our Way strategy
to eliminate over-representation
• First Children and Families Board guiding
implementation of the Our Way strategy and with
monitoring and evaluation strategy in place
• No dedicated, independent commissioner for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, but with limited powers and resourcing
• Community Voices note increased efforts to engage
with community, though much work to be done
• No dedicated peak body for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children
• Low data transparency due to poor identification
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• No dedicated commissioner or peak body for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
• No dedicated and monitored strategy to address
over-representation
• Provided very limited data to inform this report
• High accountability and collaborative work with ACCOs
through the Aboriginal Children’s Forum and the
Wungurilwil Gapgapduir Agreement, including provision
of data for monitoring and evaluation
• Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People
who leads independent systemic inquiries
• Investment in policy development roles for ACCOs
• New commitment to develop a 10-year strategy to
address over-representation in OOHC in partnership
with ACCOs
• No dedicated commissioner for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children
• Support to establish the Noongar Family Safety and
Wellbeing Council, but no state-wide peak body
 COMMUNITY VOICES FROM ACROSS AUSTRALIA
Family Matters jurisdictional working groups and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled peak bodies and organisations play a key role in leading the campaign and
calling for change and accountability in their states and territories. This year, they were invited
to comment on progress to address over-representation. Not all states and territories provided
input, particularly those without a sector peak or a Family Matters jurisdictional working group.
Family Matters strongly advocates that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families
peak bodies need to be resourced and supported in each jurisdiction to enable representative
community voices to participate in policy design, sector development, and oversight of
government commitments to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

Note: Data provided in this section may not always
be consistent with data provided in other sections of
this report as they have been provided by community
contributors and may draw on different data sets,
including at the jurisdictional level, that may have
different data definitions, inclusions and exclusions.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
The Australian Capital Territory has one of the highest
rates of over-representation in the country. Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children were shockingly
16.3 times more likely to be in out-of-home care than
non-Indigenous children in 2017-18. This is a significant
increase since last year when the rate of over-
representation was 13.9 more likely.
The Australian Capital Territory Government has
recently progressed some promising initiatives to
tackle this issue. For example, they have funded a pilot
program called Functional Family Therapy – Child
Welfare, which is managed by Gugan Gulwan Youth
Aboriginal Corporation and OzChild. The program works
specifically with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families with children and young people aged from birth
to 17 years who are at risk of entering the out-of-home
care system. So far, the program has seen promising
results with 24 families and 68 children in total being
strongly engaged in the program. None of the children
have entered out-of-home care since accessing
the program.
While this is a promising result, preventative efforts
in the Australian Capital Territory remain inadequate
to eliminate the rising rate of over-representation.
The government’s spending on family support and
intensive family support services comprised just 13.4%
of total funding spent on child protection in 2017-18
and investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled organisations (ACCOs) remains
very low. It is difficult for ACCOs to keep up with the
rate at which children and families need support from
culturally safe services. In addition, more must be done
by the Community Services Directorate to embed all five
elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Placement Principle in all of their work.
The government has built stronger partnerships with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations
and communities to tackle the escalating rate of child
removals than in previous years, through initiatives
like the Our Booris, Our Way Steering Committee.
However, the government has only progressed some of
the recommendations put forward by the Aboriginal-led
committee. There is a need to set up an Aboriginal-led
oversight body to monitor government’s implementation
of the recommendations by the Our Booris, Our
Way Steering Committee to ensure government is
accountable to its commitments.
There is also limited government transparency when
it comes to understanding the progress of policies
and programs that are there to improve outcomes
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
families. For example, there is limited information
available on whether the programs under A Step Up for
Our Kids, the Australian Capital Territory’s out-of-home
care strategy, are being progressed and are bringing
about positive results for our children.
While the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected
Body plays a strong role in advocating for the needs
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there
is no peak body dedicated to Aboriginal children or a
commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

18 FAMILY MATTERS
children and young people in the Australian Capital
Territory. The Our Booris, Our Way Steering Committee
has recommended that the government establish
a dedicated children’s commissioner. To improve
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in the Australian Capital Territory,
it is integral to implement a commissioner, along
with other recommendations outlined in the
Our Booris, Our Way review.
Overall, while there has been some progress, the
Australian Capital Territory must work in partnership
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
invest more in our solutions and children if we are to
bring about the change that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children deserve.
NEW SOUTH WALES
The NSW Government, via the Department of
Communities and Justice (DCJ) (formerly known as
Family and Community Services [FACS]), must urgently
act to strengthen the Family Matters principles and
building blocks in New South Wales. Ongoing reforms
present an opportunity to achieve substantive change
in partnership with Aboriginal communities, however is
undermined by prioritising government-led approaches
rather than the necessary partnership approach,
enabling Aboriginal communities to drive solutions.
A platform for partnership has been established through
the co-designed Plan on a Page for Aboriginal Children
and Young People 2015-21, the Aboriginal Child and
Family Investment Strategy, and the transition of case
management of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care
to accredited Aboriginal organisations.
The strength of an Aboriginal-led approach is reflected
in the development of the Aboriginal Case Management
Policy by AbSec – NSW Child, Family and Community
Peak Aboriginal Corporation, and subsequent
endorsement by DCJ, to guide practice with Aboriginal
children and families across the continuum of support.
Similarly, DCJ and AbSec are working towards
establishing an Aboriginal commissioning approach,
directing investment to Aboriginal community-led
child and family services, aligned to agreed outcomes.
2 Forecasting Future Outcomes: Stronger Communities Investment
This represents an important step towards embedded
greater self-determination and Aboriginal-led solutions.
These initiatives are in contrast to the NSW
Government’s broader strategy of government-led
solutions. Over the past 18 months, large-scale
legislative, policy and practice reforms have continued to
progress without adequate partnership with Aboriginal
communities, despite their disproportionate impact on
Aboriginal children, families and communities.
There remains a strong attitude that the “solutions”
lie in DCJ improving how they exercise their statutory
authority, through FACS-led Practice Frameworks,
internal specialist units, or FACS-administered
Family Group Conferencing, and the imposition of
international models for intensive family supports
that are poorly suited to our families, rather than
working with Aboriginal communities to develop their
own approaches grounded in community and culture.
Reforms remain fundamentally government-led and
have not adequately engaged Aboriginal communities
to agree on the way forward for Aboriginal children
and families.
Reforms outlined in Their Futures Matter: A new approach
have had limited focus on partnering with Aboriginal
communities to truly transform the system for
Aboriginal children, families and communities, despite
recent evidence outlining the disproportionate impact
of various government systems on Aboriginal children
and young people, families and communities.2 Rather,
a single, government-led agenda dominates, to the
detriment of Aboriginal children and families.
Similarly, recent legislative amendments were
developed without negotiation with Aboriginal
communities, or consideration of necessary safeguards
for Aboriginal children, families and communities.
Aboriginal communities are deeply concerned that the
amendments will contribute to more Aboriginal children
and young people being permanently severed from their
family, community and culture and exacerbate existing
inequalities, particularly in the absence of significant
investment in Aboriginal-led family supports, or access
to advocacy in uneven decision-making processes.
Aboriginal community concerns have been dismissed
by the NSW Government, that insists these changes
are beneficial to Aboriginal communities.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 19
 COMMUNITY VOICES FROM ACROSS AUSTRALIA
These government-led actions stand in stark contrast to
the NSW Government’s commitments to Aboriginal self-
determination and social justice, which requires the
dismantling of colonial systems that exercise authority
over Aboriginal families and communities and the
establishment of systems developed and administered
by Aboriginal communities themselves.
The NSW Government must turn commitment into
action, including:
• establishing an empowered Aboriginal Child and
Family Commission
• supporting the Aboriginal-led implementation of
existing commitments, including the Plan on a Page
as a key Aboriginal child and family strategy for
New South Wales, the Aboriginal Child and Family
Investment Strategy, and the Aboriginal Case
Management Strategy
• immediately halt current policies that will have
a detrimental impact on Aboriginal children and
families, and refocus to Aboriginal designed and
administered solutions.
The Family is Culture Review is expected to make
further recommendations to address the deep systemic
issues that impact on Aboriginal children and families.
The NSW Government must embrace this opportunity
for critical reflection, partnering with Aboriginal
communities to consider the findings and respond
to the recommendations with action for substantive,
systemic change.
While the approach of the NSW Government remains
focused on improving their exercise of statutory
authority over Aboriginal families through government-
led policy and practice, the statutory system will
continue to fail Aboriginal children and families.
It is only through genuine partnership, and action
towards the Family Matters building blocks through
the implementation of co-designed solutions, that
the outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and
communities will finally improve.
QUEENSLAND
Queensland continues to progress a number of
significant reforms to eliminate the over-representation
of Aboriginal and Strait Islander children in the
child protection system. The Child Protection Reform
Amendment Act 2017 commenced October 2018,
embedding the following foundations for reform:
• strengthening the rights of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples to self-determination
20 FAMILY MATTERS
• acknowledging and enabling the participation of
families and communities as the best source of
cultural knowledge in relation to their children
• embedding all five elements of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
• placing greater emphasis on ongoing connections
and culture as a protective factor.
A key opportunity for the year ahead is to support
the transfer of legislated delegations from the chief
executive to an appropriate Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander entity, which is made possible by changes to
the Act.
Progress towards key priorities outlined in Our Way:
A generational strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and families (2017-2037) and the first
Changing Tracks Action Plan (2017-2019) is showing
promising results.
The Queensland First Children and Families Board
(QFCFB), consisting of majority Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander sector and community membership, is
guiding the implementation, investment and evaluation
of Our Way and associated action plans.
Key achievements to date include:
• commencement of the First 1000 Days program
• investment in 33 Family Wellbeing Services and
13 Family Participation Programs delivered by
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-
controlled organisations (ACCOs).
Services receive training and implementation support
through the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Child Protection Peak (QATSICPP).
QATSICPP resources provide ACCOs and government
services guidance on upholding the cultural authority
and self-determination of families, including the recent
Position Statement on Aboriginal Kinship Care (2018).
Ongoing challenges include lack of investment in,
and data regarding, reunifying children and young
people disconnected from family, and increasing early
access for families and children with complex needs to
culturally appropriate services.
Queensland is now delivering family-led decision-
making statewide, though there is more work to be
done to ensure investment is targeted and enables
families to access family-led decision-making at all
points of the child protection continuum, especially at
their first engagement to prevent further progression
along that continuum.
QATSICPP is working with the Queensland Government group conferencing approaches when working with
to obtain data that will inform the development of our children and families.
catchment profiles aligned with Queensland’s Family
The Family Matters Working Group SA supported
Wellbeing Services. Once established these local-level
a National Week of Action event on 25 May 2019 in
report cards will profile key outcomes and indicators,
the Adelaide CBD, celebrating Aboriginal cultural
consistent with the scope of measures in this report,
connections, cultural heritage and the important role
to tell the story of regional, state and national outcomes
of Elders in supporting children and families, supported
for our children and provide clear line of sight for what
by Tauto Sansbury (Co-Chair), Aunty Heather Agius
changes need to be made and where.
and Aunty Yvonne Agius, respected community Elders
Other developments currently underway include: and leaders in keeping the campaign both relevant and
• a wellbeing outcomes framework connected to communities.
• a healing framework Family Matters South Australia’s implementation of
• trialling of a self-audit tool to assist services priority change efforts is entirely linked to levels of
to operate according to the Family Matters resourcing to support the working group’s strategy.
building blocks Whilst the working group has been able to rely on
modest financial contributions from the DCP and sector
• review of the Queensland Family and Child
partners over the last two years, any substantial scaling
Commission, which will influence appropriate
up of change efforts will require a much more targeted
resourcing and structure reflective of the overly-
investment in campaign infrastructure, including
represented families in out-of-home care, such as
additional staff to support family and community
the introduction of a dedicated commissioner for
engagement initiatives.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
The working group acknowledges initiatives by DCP
to develop specific responses for Aboriginal families
SOUTH AUSTRALIA and children (including the Aboriginal Action Plan
2019-20), and also acknowledge a slight reduction in
The Family Matters Working Group in South Australia
the over-representation of Aboriginal children in out-of-
(FMWGSA) works to further the priorities of the national
home care during the 2017-18 period compared to
Family Matters Roadmap, and to work alongside
the previous year (10.4 compared to 10.8 in 2016-17)4.
community, government and non-government partners
The working group also acknowledges the appointment
in order to further the over-arching objective of reducing
of the first ever commissioner for Aboriginal children
the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the
and young people in this state and has gratefully
South Australian child protection system (reported
welcomed Commissioner April Lawrie to the working
at 33% in the 2019 Report on Government Services)
group membership.
and to increase the percentage of children placed in
accordance with the Child Placement Principle (65% The working group is supportive of policy and strategy
in 2018)3. shifts that have taken place within DCP and the
Department of Human Services, including the renewed
In 2019, the working group has refreshed its local
focus on Aboriginal families in the design phases of
strategy to focus on creating more meaningful
the state government’s early intervention strategy.
opportunities for Aboriginal families to take part in the
The group is mindful, however that the only indicators
discussions and decisions that affect them and their
truly indicative of success of these policies and
children. This means providing safe and culturally
strategies are the rates of removal of Aboriginal
respectful spaces for families to engage in problem
children as well as the disproportionality ratios of
identification and the implementation of family and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in care.
community-based solutions to issues that may lead to
These figures will continue to be of most interest to
young people coming into contact with the Department
the working group in holding government accountable
for Child Protection (DCP). We are supportive of local
for its commitment to the Family Matters campaign
level Aboriginal family-led decision-making and
principles and objectives.
encourage the Department for Child Protection to
increase its efforts in the implementation of family

3 Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People (2019). ‘Snapshot of Australian Aboriginal Children and Young People in Care
and/or Detention from the Report on Government Services 2019, April 2019, accessed at www.gcyp.sa.gov.au
4 Family Matters. (2018). The Family Matters Report 2018. Melbourne: SNAICC – National Voice for our Children.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 21

 COMMUNITY VOICES FROM ACROSS AUSTRALIA
Aboriginal families and communities in South Australia
continue to want to take part in and have control over
the decisions affecting their children, and continue to
want them to have every opportunity to be raised in,
and thrive in, safe and happy families and communities.
This is going to require a very significant scaling up
of current initiatives designed to support Aboriginal
families early, as well as those initiatives that seek
to reunite Aboriginal children with their families in a
timely manner.
VICTORIA
Over the past year, Victoria has progressed a number
of reforms to address the over-representation of
Aboriginal children and young people in out-of-
home care. We commend the Victorian Government’s
commitment to progressing self-determination for all
Aboriginal people living in Victoria. In particular, there
has been significant investment in Aboriginal child
and family welfare; including $13.6 million over two
years to support the transition of Aboriginal children
to Aboriginal community-controlled organisations
(ACCOs). Two ACCOs are authorised under Aboriginal
Children in Aboriginal Care (ACAC) to case manage
Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, and two are
in pre-authorisation phase. Currently, almost 50% of
Aboriginal children in care are now managed by an
ACCO – a 2.5 times increase since 2017. By June 2020,
216 Aboriginal children will be authorised to an ACCO.
The Victorian Government has also invested $53.5
million in Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Aboriginal Children
in Families Agreement – the first tripartite agreement
between the Aboriginal community, the child and family
services sector and the Government. This agreement
is aimed at redressing the over-representation of
Aboriginal children in out-of-home care.
However, despite this progress, more funding to ACCOs
is needed to reflect growing need, especially in the
prevention space. For example, Victorian ACCOs receive
9% of total government funding spent on prevention and
out-of-home care services, despite Aboriginal children
making up 17% of the child protection population.
Further, in the two-year time period between April 2017
and March 2019, 73 out of 702 (10%) unborn reports
for Aboriginal children were substantiated within six
months of birth, compared to 9% for non-Indigenous
children. In addition, in that same period, 146 out of 702
(21%) unborn reports for Aboriginal children progressed
to out-of-home care within 12 months of birth. This is
significantly higher than the non-Indigenous cohort
(13%), suggesting that greater investment in culturally
22 FAMILY MATTERS
safe prevention services is crucial. The Victorian
Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA) is working with
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
and other key stakeholders to progress the commitment
for all unborn reports to be managed by ACCOs.
In terms of ensuring that Aboriginal children in out-
of-home care can maintain their cultural connections,
847 cultural plans have been endorsed since
implementation of the new cultural planning model
in Victoria. However, at the end of March 2019, just
568 (33%) Aboriginal children and young people had
approved cultural plans, suggesting that more work
needs to be done in this space. In this regard, DHHS has
agreed to review the current process around developing
cultural plans and provide greater responsibility in
developing and implementing cultural plans to ACCOs.
Further, in terms of ensuring connection through
appropriate placements, in March 2019, 42% of
Aboriginal children and young people were recorded
as having an Aboriginal carer. The Aboriginal status
of the carer was not recorded for approximately 33%
of Aboriginal children and young people. Also, 50%
of Aboriginal children and young people in kinship
care were placed with Aboriginal carers.
Finally, other notable developments include:
• There has been some limited funding to develop an
Aboriginal evidence base of what works. VACCA is
developing an outcomes framework that will include
cultural indicators for DHHS.
• Aboriginal-led research and evaluation underway
for a range of initiatives including ACAC, The Orange
Door and the new model of kinship care.
• The Victorian Aboriginal Children & Young People’s
Alliance (VACYP) has been funded to develop a
business model for ACCO child and family services.
• DHHS will develop a carer strategy for carers of
Aboriginal children in partnership with VACYP
members.
Despite these initiatives, as at March 2019, 19.1% of
Victorian Aboriginal children and young people were
involved with the child protection system, compared
to 1.4% of non-Indigenous children and young people.
In the same period, 16% of Aboriginal children engaged
with child protection were subject to a permanent care
order. The average length of stay in out-of-home care
for Aboriginal children and young people in March 2019
was six months longer than non-Indigenous children
and young people (three years versus two years and
six months). The percentage of Aboriginal children
exiting out-of-home care to be reunified with their
family within six months was 59%, whereas after
six months the percentage dropped to 41% (Feb 2018
– Jan 2019). These statistics indicate that despite
promising initiative, sustained effort is needed to
eliminate the over-representation of Aboriginal
children and young people in out-of-home care in
Victoria.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
It is with much sadness and despair that we report that
the number of Aboriginal children and families having
contact with the Western Australian child protection
system has increased. Aboriginal children today
represent more than 55% of the total children in out-of-
home care, a statistic significantly higher than any other
state in Australia.
In Western Australia, Aboriginal children are more
likely to enter out-of-home care than non-Indigenous
children, they are more likely to have a higher number
of placements, stay in care longer and be subject to a
finalised guardianship order.
In 2018, the Western Australian Government introduced
and funded a range of new early intervention family
support services. These services are provided directly
by an Aboriginal community-controlled organisation
(ACCO) or in partnership with an ACCO. The objective
of these services is to divert Aboriginal families from
the child protection system and less Aboriginal
children entering out-of-home care.
Since 2018, very little has changed within the out-of-
home care sector.
In July 2019, the Western Australian Government
announced its reform plans pertaining to out-of-
home care had been deferred for at least 12 months.
In deferring the reform, the Government identified
key objectives, inclusive of collaboration with ACCOs
and Aboriginal communities and the development
of trauma-informed and responsive service models.
Yorganop continues to work alongside the Government,
and stakeholders, to make certain the voices of
Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, their families
and communities are heard and listened to.
Yorganop is Western Australia’s only ACCO providing
foster care. Yorganop is funded by the Government
to provide out-of-home care arrangements for
Aboriginal children. In 2017/18 there were 2,452
Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. Yorganop
was funded to provide general care arrangements for
114 of these children (equal to 4.6%). At this time,
978 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care were
living in non-Indigenous care arrangements. Yorganop
has the capacity to provide more Aboriginal children
in out-of-home care with culturally appropriate care
arrangements, however, without the support of the
Western Australian Government, this is not possible.
In Western Australia, young people ‘age out-of-care’
the day of their 18th birthday. It is known that these
young people are a particularly vulnerable group,
requiring a suite of services to support positive and
smooth transitions from care to the community.
To support Aboriginal young people in their leaving
care transition, Yorganop is partnering with Anglicare
in their co-design and implementation of a Home
Stretch Trial.
Finally, given that the over-representation of Aboriginal
children in out-of-home care in Western Australia is a
significant concern, the Department of Communities
has supported the establishment of the Noongar Family
Safety and Wellbeing Council (NFSWC), which has the
potential to increase advocacy around these issues.
The objectives of the NFSWC are to assist in the
provision of relief from poverty, sickness, suffering,
destitution, misfortune, distress and helplessness
for Aboriginal people in Western Australia, without
discrimination. The NFSWC’s role includes:
• providing a strong voice for Noongar children
and families to promote human rights,
self-determination and cultural healing
• providing leadership in preventing Aboriginal
children and youth being removed from family
• promoting policy, legislation, framework and
program development consistent with cultural
safety and human rights
• supporting and strengthening Noongar people’s
rights to cultural safety and equitable partnerships
in all aspects of Government engagement and
service delivery
• assisting Aboriginal community and member
organisations to engage in capacity building in
relation to family safety and well-being
• supporting members to provide early intervention,
family support and residential care for Noongar
children
• engaging in research that is at the forefront and
embodies Noongar Kaatijin family safety and
wellbeing.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 23
 FOCUS ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER-LED SOLUTIONS
To effectively respond to the needs of children
and families and ensure that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights
to participation and self-determination are
fulfilled, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled organisations (ACCOs)
must have adequate roles, resources and
funding. International and Australian evidence
is clear that the best outcomes in community
wellbeing and development for Indigenous
peoples are achieved when those peoples have
control over their own lives and are empowered
to respond to and address the problems facing
their own communities. The evidence that
supports this is detailed in Part 3 of this report.
Across the country Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples and their organisations are demonstrating
excellence in supporting families and transforming
the lives of our children for the better. These programs
span areas including prevention and early intervention,
out-of-home care, cultural connection, reunification
and policy design. The examples of promising initiatives
highlighted here are expanded on throughout this
report.
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
FAMILY WELLBEING SERVICES, QUEENSLAND
The Queensland Government has invested $33.34
million per annum to roll out 33 Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander community-controlled services
to support families experiencing vulnerability across
the state. These services work with various culturally
appropriate universal, secondary and specialist
services; placement services; Family Participation
Program services; and with individual families to
provide tailored, holistic and coordinated supports
to meet each family’s unique needs. Data from the
first 12 months of operation demonstrate that the
33 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations
that deliver early intervention support to families
have achieved half the rate of re-notifications to
the department compared with mainstream,
non-Indigenous organisations (Lewis, 2019).
More information can be found on page 85 of this report.
24 FAMILY MATTERS
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
INTEGRATED EARLY YEARS SERVICES,
ACROSS AUSTRALIA
Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services (MACS)
and Aboriginal Child and Family Centres (ACFCs)
play a crucial role in providing Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and families access to quality,
culturally safe services. These services connect
vulnerable families to an array of integrated services
that are designed to meet locally determined
priorities and needs. The role of both ACFCs and
MACS in reaching out to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children who are not otherwise accessing
early education and care services illustrates
the positive impact of local ownership of such
services. According to Trudgett and Grace (2011),
‘the establishment of [MACS] centres is potentially
the most important contributor to the decrease in
the discrepancy between the rates of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous enrolment in early childhood
services’ (p.18). Similarly, the evaluation of the
New South Wales ACFCs in 2014 confirmed that,
on average, 78% of children attending child care
through the ACFCs in New South Wales had not
previously accessed early education and care
(CIRCA, 2014).
More information can be found on page 60 of this report.
AN ABORIGINAL-LED NURSE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM,
NORTHERN TERRITORY
In the Northern Territory, a family partnership
program led by the Central Australian Aboriginal
Congress is supporting mothers of Aboriginal
children (during pregnancy and up to two years post
birth). As part of the service, nurses and Aboriginal
community workers support mothers to stay healthy
during pregnancy and make their homes safe for
them and their families. In 2018, a study of the
program showed that from 2009 to 2015, compared
to matched controls, children of families on the
program were 62% less likely to have any episode
of substantiated neglect and the children of first-
time mothers were 94% less likely to spend any
annualised days in out-of-home-care.
More information can be found on page 54 of this report.
A NEW MODEL OF KINSHIP CARE, VICTORIA
Victoria’s new kinship care model commenced in
March 2018. It demonstrates a strong commitment to
prioritising the role of ACCOs in developing processes
for culturally safe kinship carer assessment
and support. As part of the model, the Victorian
Government has funded the Victorian Aboriginal
Child Care Agency (VACCA) in partnership with the
First Nations Legal and Research Services and
the Koorie Heritage Trust to deliver the Aboriginal
Kinship Finding Service. The service includes the
establishment of a genealogical database to support
early kinship carer identification, thus increasing
opportunities for identifying placements that are
compliant with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander placement hierarchy.
More information can be found on page 76 of this report.
A NEW MODEL OF KINSHIP CARE,
NORTHERN TERRITORY
In the Northern Territory, Territory Families funded
Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation
(Tangentyere Council) to develop a new family and kin
care model. Tangentyere Council developed Children
Safe, Family Together through extensive consultation,
and drawing upon the expert advice and support of
the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA).
The model provides a comprehensive approach to
identifying, recruiting and supporting Aboriginal
family and kin carers that is evidence and place-
based. At the same time, Territory Families has
funded a number of Aboriginal organisations to take
the lead in finding family for Aboriginal children who
are unable to live with their parents and recruiting
and supporting Aboriginal kin carers. Since these
programs were introduced, 42 Aboriginal children
have been placed with Aboriginal carers (an increase
of 18% since the previous year).
More information can be found on page 83 of this report..
DELEGATION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY
TO ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY-CONTROLLED
ORGANISATIONS, VICTORIA
In Victoria, section 18 of the Children Youth and
Families Act 2005 (Vic.) enables the Secretary of
the department to authorise the principal officer
of an Aboriginal agency to perform specified
functions and exercise specified powers conferred
on the Secretary by or under the Act in relation to
a protection order in respect of an Aboriginal child.
This power has been exercised through Victoria’s
Aboriginal Children in Aboriginal Care program,
with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations
(ACCOs) taking full responsibility for the care and
case management of Aboriginal children in out-of-
home care. This role has been commenced through
the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA)
with the Nugel program, and through Bendigo and
District Aboriginal Cooperative with the Mutjang
Bupuwingarrak Mukman program. Preliminary
data indicates that children in these programs have
remained connected to, or re-develop connections
to their families, communities and cultures by
being placed within the care of their kin or by being
reunified with their families. By June 2020, 216
Aboriginal children will be authorised to an ACCO.
More information can be found on page 88 of this report.

AN ABORIGINAL-DESIGNED ABORIGINAL CASE

MANAGEMENT POLICY, NEW SOUTH WALES
In 2017, the NSW Government commissioned
AbSec – NSW Child, Family and Community Peak
Aboriginal Corporation, as the peak organisation for
Aboriginal children and families in the state, to lead
the development of the Aboriginal Case Management
Policy and the accompanying Rules and Practice
Guidance handbook. The policy seeks to respond
to the specific needs of Aboriginal families and
children across the child protection continuum, with
a strong focus on prevention and early intervention,
and oversight of policy implementation through
Aboriginal community-controlled mechanisms.
AbSec consulted widely with Aboriginal communities
and non-Indigenous stakeholders before developing
the resource and the policy is considered to
be holistic and culturally responsive. The NSW
Government endorsed the policy in 2019.
More information can be found on page 84 of this report.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 25

 FOCUS ON PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION

A prevention and early intervention approach to child safety and wellbeing seeks to create the
conditions that allow for families and children to thrive and is critical for upholding the rights of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to grow up within their own family and community.
Supporting families to care for their children requires investment and action beyond child
protection policies and programs. It depends upon income support, wages and tax policies,
health, housing, justice, education, and other social programs.
Recent research has confirmed that families with Under this approach, it is essential that services and
complex problems and intergenerational histories systems be configured so that Aboriginal and Torres
of maltreatment are those most known to child Strait Islander people lead the service design and
protection agencies (Arney, 2019). It is essential that delivery for our children. As highlighted in the Family
service responses are equipped to promote healing Matters Roadmap, quality, culturally safe services are
and functioning in families with multiple and complex required across the three levels of service provision
needs. Efforts to reduce the over-representation of depicted on the following page to ensure that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in care Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children thrive.
need to address all three levels: prevention, early
intervention and statutory intervention, with a
focus and emphasis on ensuring the availability
and access to primary preventive services.

26 FAMILY MATTERS
 Primary prevention (primary level) which includes services and activities that are universal with a
whole-of-community focus that aim to prevent child maltreatment via programs and resources to
improve the health, safety and wellbeing of children, families and communities.
Primary prevention involves population-level strategies that are universally available to all families
and include a range of health services, early childhood education and care, primary and secondary
Level 1

school education, employment and housing.

Key related data points available within this report include:
- Access to maternal child health services and infant health outcomes – Section 2.3
- Access to early childhood education, development and care – Section 2.3
- Access to housing service supports and housing stability indicators – Section 2.2
- Poverty indicators – Section 2.2

Level 2: Early intervention (secondary level) which includes services and activities that are targeted
for groups or individuals experiencing disadvantage and aim to enhance family functioning and increase
parental skills and knowledge to prevent maltreatment occurring.
Early intervention involves family support services targeted at families that may experience difficulty in
caring for children or showing early signs that problems may arise. The early in early intervention means
both early in the child’s life, and at the early stages of a problem emerging. The aim of early intervention
is to reduce risks for families experiencing vulnerabilities, meet unmet needs, and resolve problems at
an early stage.
Level 2

Key related data points available within this report include:

- Investment in family support service provision – Section 2.3
- Access to family support services – Section 2.3
- Family violence incidence and related data – Section 2.3
- Access to alcohol and other drug treatment services – Section 2.3
- Psychological distress and access to mental health services – Section 2.3
- Investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled family support services
– Section 3.3

Statutory intervention (tertiary level) is for children and families where maltreatment has been identified
and aims to ensure safety, appropriate care and therapeutic support to children and to prevent the harm
from re-occurring. They are used when it has been determined that parents or a caregiver cannot provide
safe care for a child without statutory intervention. Family support, family preservation, investigation,
obtaining court orders, out-of-home care, family reunification, cultural connection, post-care support,
and therapeutic services are all part of the tertiary child protection and family support system.
Key data points include:
Level 3

- Rates of child protection notification, investigation, substantiation and placement in out-of-home care
– Section 1.3
- Rates of children subject to long-term or permanent care orders, or adoption – Section 1.3
- Rates of placement of children in out-of-home care with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers
– Section 3.1
- Discussion of data gaps regarding reunification and state-based reunification data – Section 1.3
- Discussion of data gaps relating to the quality and implementation of cultural support plans for
children in out-of-home care – Section 3.2

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 27

28 FAMILY MATTERS
PART 1
CURRENT DATA AND TRENDS IN OVER-
REPRESENTATION IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
1.1 OVERVIEW
The over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care placements is
the end result of several linked processes, all of which
are essential to understanding what it will take to bring
about substantial change. From a systems perspective,
the number of children in out-of-home care at any point
in time is a function of four interrelated processes:
1. Children already in out-of-home care
This is a count of all children who are recorded as
living away from their parents in out-of-home care
on a given day. Some children will have been in out-
of-home care for one day and some for 17 years.
This gives a point-in-time count of the prevalence
of out-of-home care and is reported nationally as at
30 June in Child Protection Australia and the Report
on Government Services.
2. Children entering out-of-home care
This is a count of all entries into out-of-home care
in a given period of time (usually over a year). Some
children may have been in out-of-home care in an
earlier year and others have had no prior contact,
but all commenced a placement in a given year
(i.e. removed from the care of their parent(s) and
placed with a kinship or foster carer, in a residential
care service, or other placement option in that
jurisdiction). This is known as the incidence of out-
of-home care (i.e. new cases) or an entry cohort.
3. Children exiting out-of-home care
This is a count of all children exiting out-of-home
care in a given period (usually a year). This is known
as an exit cohort. Most children exit care because
they turn 18 years (i.e. age out of care), others return
to the care of their parents or other family members,
and some exit to other jurisdictional permanent care
arrangements.
4. The time children spend in out-of-home care
When children enter care, they stay for very short
to long periods of time (i.e. until they turn 18 years).
This is commonly referred to as length of stay
or duration in care, and is a main driver of
prevalence, or the total number of children
living in out-of-home care.
When considered this way, over-representation and
under-representation could occur in any or all of these
processes. Focusing only on those children in out-of-
home care or those exiting out-of-home care leads to
poor policy decisions. Reducing over-representation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-
of-home care requires legislative, policy and program
attention to children entering care, in care, and exiting
care. Crucially, prevention and early intervention are
necessary to strengthen families to enable them to
provide the best possible environment for their children,
and family support is necessary to provide in-home
or intensive services when there are concerns about
children, whether at entry to out-of-home care or pre
and post reunification decision points.
1.2 HOW OVER-REPRESENTATION
OCCURS
Over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care is a result of a
complex range of factors related to inter-generational
experiences of trauma, poverty and disadvantage for
families and communities and under-representation
in universal prevention and early intervention services.
The likelihood of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
child coming to the attention of authorities, being
notified, investigated, substantiated and placed in out-
of-home care is greater compared with non-Indigenous
children. At the same time, over-representation reflects
whether there is the same likelihood of an Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander child, once placed, being returned
to the care of their parents (rate of reunification or
restoration) and how long this process takes (length
of stay).
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
families, the further into the system, the more intrusive
the intervention. Each decision-making point requires
different strategies for bringing the system to parity.
For example, whether to refer to a support service
or report to the statutory agency, the type of support
service to which the family is referred, whether
to investigate, the assistance needed if statutory
intervention is not warranted, whether out-of-home
care is needed, the type of order and whether to
return a child to parental care.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 29
 1.3 CURRENT SITUATION AND TRENDS
EXCLUSION OF TASMANIA’S CHILD
PROTECTION DATA In 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
were 5.5 times more likely to be reported to child
For 2017-18, Indigenous status in Tasmania is no protection; 9.9 times more likely to be subject to a
longer being crosschecked with data from other protection order, and 10.2 times more likely to be living
databases. As a result, the number of clients of in out-of-home care than non-Indigenous children (see
‘Unknown’ Indigenous status is larger than in Figure 1). These rate ratios (standardised difference
previous years. This impacts the reliability of data between the rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
disaggregated by Indigenous status. As a result, Islander children and the rate for other children)
this report excludes data from Tasmania for state- have been dramatically increasing over the last decade.
based analyses in line with the approach taken by Rate ratios use the non-Indigenous rate as the baseline,
the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in the and show how many times greater the Aboriginal and
2019 Child Protection Australia report. Data from Torres Strait Islander rate is.
Tasmania is included within national aggregate
data to allow comparability with previous years, Figure 2 shows the ratio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
although this data should be interpreted with Islander children who were involved with a state or
caution. The impact on national ratios is minimal territory child protection system compared with non-
due to the relatively small out-of-home care Indigenous children in 2018. At the highest end of the
population in Tasmania in comparison to other range, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
jurisdictions. in Western Australia were almost 18 times more
likely to be placed in out-of-home care than a
non-Indigenous child.

FIGURE 1 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children involved with child
protection systems in Australia, 2006-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children involved
with child protection systems in Australia, 2006-18

12.0

10.0 10.2
10.0 9.8
9.5
9.2
8.9 OOHC
8.6
8.3
7.9 Protection order
8.0 7.5
7.0 CPO Admission
6.6
Rate

Substantiation
Rate ratio

6.0 5.7
Ratio

Investigation
5.5
5.0 5.1 5.2 Notification
4.9
4.6 4.7
4.0
4.2 4.2 Non-Indigenous children

3.3 CPO Discharge

3.1
2.7
2.0 2.4

0.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Financial Year
Financial Year
Source: 2005-2006 data from Chapter 15 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2016)
2008-2017 data Chapter 16 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2018, 2019)
Source: 2005-2006 data from Chapter 15 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2016)
2007-2017 data Chapter 16 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2018, 2019)

Rate ratios for substantiations and investigations are not provided for 2017-18 because NSW did not provide data for investigations and
substantiations in 2017-18. Since NSW is the largest jurisdiction which accounts for a large percentage of all the children in investigations
and substantiations, national aggregate data for investigations and substantiations cannot be meaningfully constructed, compared to
previous years.

30 FAMILY MATTERS
 DATA GAP
IDENTIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL AND
TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CHILDREN
Without correct and early identification, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children at all levels of child
protection involvement are at risk of being deprived of
culturally safe support, case planning and placement,
and as a result data will also not accurately describe
their interactions with the child and family service
system.
Recommendation: For policy and legislation in each
state and territory to require children and families
be asked at the earliest possible point of interaction
with the child and family service system about their
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity; that
this question is revisited regularly; and that the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status of the child
is identified and recorded as early as possible – at a
minimum by the time any investigation of suspected
child harm is completed. Implementation measures
should include the provision of best practice advice to
child and family service workers on how to discuss
and explore cultural identity with children and families.

FIGURE 2 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children involved with child
protection in Australia, by jurisdiction, 2006-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
involved with child protection in Australia, by jurisdiction, 2006-18

20.0

18.0
17.8
17.4
16.0 16.4 16.3
15.8 15.7
14.0

12.0
12.2
Rate ratios

11.5
10.9 11.1 11.0
10.0 10.5
10.5 10.5 10.4
Ratio Rate

10.2
10.1 9.910.2
9.19.2
8.0 8.68.5 8.7
8.0
7.4 7.5 7.5
7.0
6.0 6.76.5 6.6
6.3
5.3 5.5
4.0 4.85.1

2.0

0.0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust
Notification Investigation Substantiation Protection Order OOHC Non-Indigenous
a. Notification, invesitigation and substantiation rates were calculated as the number of children aged 0–17 years (including those whose age was not stated) in at least one out of home care placement during
a. Notification,
the year, divided by the investigation and aged
estimated population substantiation rates were
0–17 at 31 December, calculated
multiplied asIndigenous
by 1000. For the number of the
children, children aged 0–17
June projections years
for two years (including those
were averaged whose
to obtain age was
a population notforstated)
figure
in at of
December least one out
the relevant of home
year. care
Rates could notplacement
be calculatedduring theofyear,
for children divided
unknown by the
Indigenous estimated
status population
as corresponding aged
population data0–17
were at
not31 December, multiplied by 1000. For Indige-
available.
b. Protection order and OOHC rates measured at June 30 each financial year.
nous children, the June projections for two years were averaged to obtain a population figure for December of the relevant year. Rates could not be calculated
c. Number of children on Third-party Parental Responsibility Order added to OOHC data for NSW, VIC and WA for consistency reason.
for children of unknown Indigenous status as corresponding population data were not available.
b. Protection order and OOHC rates measured at June 30 each financial year.
c. Number of children on Third-party Parental Responsibility Order added to OOHC data for NSW, VIC and WA for consistency reason.
Source: Tables 16A.1 and 16A.2 from Chapter 16 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2019) ; Table S30 from Child Protection Australia 2017-18 (AIHW, 2019)

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 31

 ENTRY TO AND DISCHARGE FROM OUT-OF-HOME
CARE FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER CHILDREN
Entry and discharge data counts entry and exit from
out-of-home care during the year. The entry rate to
out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children dropped from 13.6 per 1000 children
in 2016-17 to 12.8 per 1000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in 2017-18 while the rate for non-
Indigenous children remained stable at 1.4 per 1000
children (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
[AIHW], 2019d). The rate of discharge from out-of-home
care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
was higher (11.2 per 1000 children) in comparison with
non-Indigenous children (1.3 per 1000). Data are not
currently disaggregated by exit type, so it is not known
whether children are exiting due to age or reunification.
DATA GAPS
REPEAT ENGAGEMENT WITH CHILD
PROTECTION SERVICES, BY INDIGENOUS
STATUS
Child protection involvement is not just more
likely for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families it is also more likely to be repeated.
Research has found that Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children were over-represented in
recurrence at multiple stages of intervention, and
that Indigenous status was a stronger predictor
of subsequent investigation than a rating of
‘high risk’ on the risk assessment tool (Jenkins,
Tilbury, Hayes, & Mazerolle, 2018). To better
understand the full impact of over-representation,
it is important to understand not just how many
children have contact with the system, but how
often they experience this. While some data are
available nationally on children who are repeat
clients of child protection services at different
points of contact, these data are not reported by
Indigenous status.
Recommendation: That data be collected and
reported on new and repeat contact with child
protection services, by Indigenous status, at
each stage of contact, including notification,
investigation, substantiation, entry to orders,
entry to care, reunification and post guardianship
or adoption order.
32 FAMILY MATTERS
LIMITATION OF POINT-IN-TIME ESTIMATES
The data currently publicly available mainly reports
on prevalence, not incidence. They are largely
based on point-in-time counts at 30 June that are
not linked to each other (i.e. children can have
multiple incidents in a given year). The data are
not presented in a longitudinal format that allows
calculations of length of stay by Indigenous status,
time to exit-by-exit type, or Indigenous status, and
there is no information on re-entry to care.
Recommendation: Development of longitudinal
data that allows for calculation of the length of
stay in out-of-home care, time to exit-by-exit type,
and re-entry to care, by Indigenous status.
REUNIFICATION/RESTORATION
Reunification (or safe return home) is the policy priority
for children living in out-of-home care across all
jurisdictions (AIHW, 2019d). For Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children placed in out-of-home care,
safe reunification is the preferred option for protecting
a child’s right to be brought up within their family and
connected to community, culture and country. Although
limited evidence exists on the factors associated with
reunification, research on out-of-home care in South
Australia found that 60% of reunifications could be
predicted based on three factors: ethnicity, neglect and
parental incapacity (Delfabbro, Barber & Cooper, 2003).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, children
living in rural areas and children who were victims of
neglect were significantly less likely to be reunified
(Delfabbro et al., 2003).
Reunification requires interagency, targeted, culturally
safe supports to ensure that families get the holistic
support they need, whether it be assistance with
adequate housing, assistance with overcoming
substance misuse, or support to address family
violence so that children in out-of-home care can be
reunified with their families (Lee, Jonson-Reid, & Drake,
2012; Sheets, Wittenstrom, Fong, Tecci, Baumann, &
Rodriguez, 2009; Pine, Spath, Werrbach, Jenson, &
Kerman, 2009).
Currently, national data are not available on the number
of children who exit out-of-home care and are reunified.
Data on exits due to reunification and ageing out of care
are combined. States and territories were asked by the
Family Matters campaign to provide data on the number
of children returned home within 12 months and after
more than 12 months from admission to a care and
protection order. Four jurisdictions provided data on
reunification for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children: the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern
Territory, South Australia and Victoria.
Figure 3 compares rates of reunification to admissions
to care and protection orders in 2017-18 for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
in the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory,
FIGURE 3 Ratio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children reunified to birth parents
within 12 months of admission to care and protection order by jurisdiction, 2017-18

Ratio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Non-Indigenous

Indigenous non-Indigenous children reunified to birth parents
within 12 months of admission to care and protection order by jurisdiction, 2017-18

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30
Ratio
Ratio

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
VIC SA ACT NT
Note: Ratio of number of children reunified to birth parents within 12 months of admission to Children admitted to Care and Protection Order, both in
the calendar year. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
Source: Data provided by the government of VIC, SA, ACT and NT

Note: Ratio of number of children reunified to birth parents within 12 months of admission to Children admitted to Care and Protection Order,
both in the calendar year.
Source: Data provided by the government of VIC, SA, ACT and NT

South Australia and Victoria. Aboriginal and Torres artificially decrease shameful child protection statistics
Strait Islander children were most likely to be reunified have motivated recent permanency planning reforms
in the Northern Territory, followed by Victoria. The gap (Libesman & McGlade, 2018).
between reunification rates for Aboriginal and Torres
Nationally ministers for community services have
Strait Islander children and non-Indigenous children
agreed to adopt Guiding Principles for Permanency Best
was largest in the Northern Territory and smallest in
Practice to guide these reforms. The second principle
South Australia.
is “compliance with all five domains of the Child
Placement Principle … is supported and measured”
THE IMPACT OF PERMANENCY PLANNING
(Department of Social Services, 2018). However, as
TRENDS documented throughout this report, there remains high
For children placed in out-of-home care, stability of concern that legislation, policy and practice across
relationships and identity are vitally important to their the country has poor alignment to the intent of the
wellbeing and must be promoted. In recent years, Child Placement Principle, and that in many cases
state and territory child protection authorities have permanency policy runs counter to its intent.
increasingly used a range of processes and practices
The entrenchment of permanency planning objectives
in an apparent attempt to promote stability through
within legislation reflects a focus on legal permanency,
longer-term care arrangements for children in out-of-
and is tied to the notion that a legal arrangement can
home care. These vary in detail in each jurisdiction but
generate a sense of safety and belonging for children
are often broadly described as permanency planning. In a
in out-of-home care (Parkinson, 2003). The theory
number of states and territories, there have been strong
underpinning legal permanency suggests that the
trends in policy and legislative reform to increase the
sooner a court order providing long-term guardianship
focus on, and expedite time frames for, the use of long
with a carer can be established, the greater stability
term, permanency-focused orders by child protection
can occur, and that this is a better outcome for
authorities and the courts, including long-term finalised
a child’s wellbeing (NSW Family and Community
guardianship and custody orders; third-party parental
Services, 2018b). However, research from the care and
responsibility orders; and adoption orders. Child welfare
protection sector recognises that a broader definition
experts argue that the desire to reduce the financial
of permanency encompasses “relational permanency
costs associated with long-term out-of-home care and

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 33

 (positive, caring, stable relationships), and physical
permanency (stable living arrangements, and … legal
arrangements)” (Tilbury & Osmond, 2006, p. 269).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people commonly
question permanency decisions based on a narrow
construct of attachment theory that does not recognise
the importance of cultural identity development to
achieving wellbeing, permanence, and belonging
for children.
The Family Matters campaign is deeply concerned
that current approaches to permanency planning are
not sufficiently attuned to the reality that permanence
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is
developed from a communal sense of belonging;
experiences of cultural connection; and a stable sense
of identity including knowing where they are from,
and their place in relation to family, mob, community,
land and culture (SNAICC – National Voice for our
Children, 2016).
Permanent care orders risk severing cultural
connections in circumstances where children are in
placements that are disconnected from their families
and communities. A detrimental feature of permanent
care orders in many jurisdictions is that there is no
legal mechanism to ensure ongoing connection to
family, community and culture, particularly for children
placed with non-Indigenous carers or Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander carers from a different community
(AbSec, 2018). Even in jurisdictions where safeguards
to ensure cultural connection are required – such
as cultural support plans – minimal compliance
with these directives means that a child’s cultural
rights are inadequately protected (Commission for
Children and Young People, 2017). The Family Matters
campaign has called for all jurisdictions to enshrine
legislative safeguards to ensure that an Aboriginal
agency that understands the child’s cultural and
kinship connections has the opportunity to assess and
recommend whether a long-term order is in the best
interests of the child. In Victoria, for example, s.323(2)(a)
of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 requires that
the Court receive a report from an Aboriginal agency
recommending the making of a permanent care order.
Broadly, across all jurisdictions, the hierarchy of
permanency objectives are: preservation or reunification
with birth parent(s); or a permanent care arrangement
either with relatives/kin or another long-term carer.
The figure below sets out the three permanency
objectives and the associated care and protection
orders, based upon the Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare’s (AIHW) national mapping of local order
types (AIHW, 2016).

PERMANENCY PLANNING OPTIONS

PRESERVATION REUNIFICATION PERMANENT CARE

Child remains at home
following substantiation
of a risk of harm report
Goal is for full parental Child is placed in long-term out-of-home care,
guardianship/custody of the or exits out-of-home care
child to be transferred back
to the birth parent, family or
former guardian

Supervisory Short-term finalised Long-term finalised Guardianship/Custody

Order: Guardianship/Custody Order:
Order: • Guardianship/custody of the child is transferred
• Custody and
guardianship of the • Guardianship and/ to the state or territory department or
child remain with the or custody of the child non-government agency until the child
parents; and transferred to the turns 18 years of age.
relevant state or territory
• Order often has department or non-
specific conditions government agency; and Finalised Third-Party Guardianship/Parental
attached that are Responsibility Order:
relevant to ensuring • On a short-term order,
• Order transfers all duties, powers,
the protection of the child has been placed in
responsibilities authority to which parents
child. out-of-home care usually
are entitled by law to a nominated person(s)
with goal of achieving
whom the court considers appropriate.
reunification.

Adoption Order:
• Order, made by a competent authority under
adoption legislation, by which the adoptive
parent(s) become the legal parent(s) of the child.

34 FAMILY MATTERS
Policies across Australia limit the time during which
reunification can occur and require that a permanency
objective be achieved within a specified time following a
child being placed in out-of-home care, either through
reunification or alternative permanent care (AIHW,
2016). However, these prescribed timeframes are out
of step with the realities faced by vulnerable families
(Berry Street, 2018). Parents rarely have access to the
supports required to address their needs, particularly
within the legislated timeframes. A lack of service
availability, and particularly culturally appropriate
services, and delays in service provisions for families,
including waiting lists for housing and other critical
services, limit capacity for families to address protective
concerns within a narrow timeframe (Fernandez &
Lee, 2013; Commission for Children and Young People,
2017). Permanency planning decisions should be based
on the best interests of the individual child rather than
mandated timeframes.
The impacts of expedited timeframes for pursuing
reunification fall disproportionately on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children. Data demonstrate
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
are significantly more likely to be on long-term
permanency-focused orders than non-Indigenous
children in out-of-home care. As of 30 June 2018,
40% of children who had been in care for two years or
longer were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
(AIHW, 2019d). Length of time in care has a cumulative
effect on incidence in care, and thus is a major driver
of the level of over-representation in Australia.
A lack of adequate focus on enabling preservation,
strengthening family ties, or achieving reunification for
children involved in statutory child protection systems
across jurisdictions is a major concern in the context
of permanency planning. In its review of Victoria’s
permanency reforms, the Victorian Commission
for Children and Young People (2017) found that
systemic pressures – including high caseloads for
child protection case management practitioners, and
inadequate support services to meet families complex
needs – prevented many parents from resuming
care of the children within the legislated timeframe
of two years. Although reunification is recognised as
the preferred permanency objective, data from the
Victorian review found that there was a 9% drop in the
number of reunifications in the six months following
the implementation of the permanency amendments
(Commission for Children and Young People, 2017,
p. 187).
LONG-TERM FINALISED GUARDIANSHIP OR
CUSTODY ORDERS
Figure 4 shows that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children are over 12 times as likely to be on a
long-term finalised guardianship or custody order than
non-Indigenous children. In the majority of jurisdictions,
these are considered to be a permanent care
arrangement until the child turns 18 with no prospect
of reunification. Custody is transferred to the relevant
state or territory department or non-government
organisation that is responsible for the child’s welfare,
as well as decisions relating to their education, health,
religion, and living arrangements (AIHW, 2016).
States and territories were asked to provide data on the
number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
on finalised guardianship or custody orders who were
placed with an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
carer. Responses were received from four jurisdictions.
Where data was provided by states and territories on the
proportion of children placed in Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander residential care, this was excluded.
In the Australian Capital Territory, there were 207
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children subject
to a finalised guardianship order at 30 June 2018. Of
these, 124 (59.9%) of those children were placed with a
relative/kinship carer, and 88 (42.5%) were placed with
a relative/kinship carer or other carer who identified as
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.
In Queensland, 3050 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children were on finalised guardianship or
custody orders at 30 June 2018. Of these, 641 (21%)
of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
on finalised guardianship and custody orders, were
placed with an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
relative/kin carer and 451 (14.8%) were placed with
non-Indigenous kin, totalling 1092 (35.8%) of children
who have been placed with kin. For children in non-
relative/kin placements, only 397 (13%) were with other
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander carers.
There were 1147 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children on finalised guardianship orders in South
Australia at 30 June 2018. Of these, 607 (52.9%) of these
children were living with a relative/kinship carer, and
501 (43.7%) were placed with a relative/kinship carer or
other carer who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander.
Tasmania provided data on the number of children
subject to a finalised guardianship order that were not
disaggregated by relationship of the carer to the child.
There were 958 children on a finalised guardianship
order at 30 June 2018. Of the 958 children, 255 (26.6%)
were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and 397
(41.4%) were non-Indigenous. A further 306 (31.9%)
were of unknown Indigenous status, reflecting the poor
identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
status in Tasmania’s reporting.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 35
 80

70
FIGURE 4 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children on long-term
finalised guardianship or custody orders, by jurisdiction, at 30 June 2018
60
Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
on long-term finalised guardianship or custody orders, by jurisdiction, at 30 June 2018

50

Rates (per 1000)

30 80
30 80

70
70
25
25 40
60
60

Rates (per 1000)

20
Ratio Rate

20
50 30

1000)
50

(per1000)
Ratios
RateRatios

15 40

Rates(per
15 40
20
Rate

Rates
30
30
10
10
20
20 10
5
5
10
10
0
0 0
Vic 0 QldNSW VicWA Qld SA
WA SA Tas Tas ACT
ACT NT NT Aust
0 Aust
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust
Indigenous Non-Indigenous Indigenous Rates
Indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Non-Indigenous
Indigenous
Islander Non-Indigenous
Non-Indigenous Indigenous
Indigenous
Aboriginal Rates
Rates
and Torres Strait Islander Rate
Source: AIHW, 2019
Source: AIHW, 2019
9 Note: AIHW,
Source:
NSW data
Note: NSW 2019
data
does not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.
does not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.
Note: NSW data does not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.
oes not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.

THIRD-PARTY PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

ORDERS CHANGES IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE COUNTING
RULES
The granting of a third-party parental responsibility
order transfers full responsibility for the child to New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia
another person (such as a foster carer) until the age of have excluded children on third-party parental
18 years, with oversight and support by the statutory responsibility orders (permanent care orders)
agency varying by jurisdiction. These orders are from its out-of-home care population count. The
commonly known as permanent care orders. In most exclusion of children on permanent care orders
jurisdictions, involvement of the statutory agency ceases misrepresents the situation of children who have
once a third-party parental responsibility order is in been removed from their families. The Family
place and birth parents have minimal recourse to seek Matters campaign is concerned that this change
a review of the order. Permanent carers hold the same may incentivise the use of permanent care orders
rights and responsibilities as a parent for the child and to reduce the number of children and young people
make all the decisions related to the child, including counted as in out-of-home care, and to reduce
where they will live, health care, religion, and their the costs and responsibilities for governments
education. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the in ensuring their quality care. This carries an
Child Placement Principle will be complied with, enormous risk to children’s cultural rights and
or that cultural connections for a child will be connections because available data indicates
supported. that the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children on these orders are placed with
non-Indigenous carers.

Across Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

children are seven times more likely to be placed on
a third-party parental responsibility order than non-
Indigenous children. As demonstrated in Figure 5,

36 FAMILY MATTERS
 80

70
FIGURE 5 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children on Third Party
Parental Responsibility Orders, by jurisdiction, at 30 June 2018
60
Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children on
Third Party Parental Responsibility Orders, by jurisdiction, at 30 June 2018
50

Rates (per 1000)

1830 25 80

16 70
25 40
20
14
60

1220

Rates (per 1000)

50
30
Ratio Rate

Rates (per 1000)

Rates (per 1000)
15
Rate Ratios
Rate Ratios

10
15 40
8 20
10
30
610

20 10
4
5
5
2 10
0
W Vic 0 0 Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT 0 0 Aust
NSW
NSW VicVic QldQld WAWA SA SA TasTas ACTACT NT NT AustAust
Indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Non-Indigenous
Indigenous
Indigenous
Islander Non-Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
Non-Indigenous Indigenous Rates
Indigenous
Indigenous
Aboriginal Rates
and Torres Rates
Strait Islander Rate

Source: AIHW, 2019

2019 Source: AIHW, 2019
Note: NSW data does not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.
a does not show division of short-term and long-term guardianship. National aggregate excludes NSW.
Source: AIHW, 2019

in New South Wales and Victoria, Aboriginal and Of these, 203 (59%) of those children were with a
Torres Strait Islander children are over-represented relative/kinship carer and 138 (40%) were with a
on permanent care orders at rates significantly higher relative/kinship, or other carer, who identified as
than the national average. Notably, in New South Wales, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.
14 per 1000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Queensland provided a breakdown of the number of
children were on a third party parental responsibility
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children on long-
order, a rate far higher than in any other jurisdiction.
term guardianship to other (relative or other suitable
States and territories were asked to provide data on person) orders and permanent carer orders who
the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander were placed with relative/kin or other Aboriginal and/
children on permanent care orders who were placed or Torres Strait Islander carers. At 30 June 2018, 577
with an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander carer. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were on
Responses were received from five jurisdictions. a long-term guardianship to other order. The following
percentages were reported in relation to placement:
In the Australian Capital Territory, there were 28
287 (49.7%) with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children on
relative/kin; 243 (42.1%) with non-Indigenous relative/
permanent care orders at 30 June 2018. Of these,
kin; and 10 (1.8%) with other Aboriginal and/or Torres
13 (46.4%) were placed with a relative/kinship carer
Strait Islander carers. The remainder of children were
and only 3 (10.7%) were living with relative/kinship
placed with non-Indigenous carers or in residential
or other carers who identified as Aboriginal and/or
care. Permanent care orders came into effect in
Torres Strait Islander.
Queensland in October 2018, in the period between
Victoria provided a breakdown of the number of October 2018 and 30 June 2019, there were three
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children on a permanent care orders made in relation to Aboriginal
permanent care order who were placed with relative/ and Torres Strait Islander children. Two of these
kin and/or with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children were placed with Aboriginal and/or Torres
carers. There were 345 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Strait Islander relative/kin and one was placed with
Islander children subject to a permanent care order. a non-Indigenous carer.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 37

 South Australia provided a breakdown by type of
placement for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
children who were placed with relative/kin or an
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander carer.
At 30 June 2018, 20 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children were subject to a permanent care order,
14 (70.6%) were placed with a relative/kinship carer
and 9 (47.1%) were placed with an Aboriginal and/or
Torres Strait Islander relative/kin or other Aboriginal
and/or Torres Strait Islander carer.
Tasmania provided data on the number of children
subject to a permanent care order at 30 June 2018
that is not disaggregated by relationship of the child to
the carer. There were 232 children on permanent care
orders, 61 (26.3%) were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander, 144 (62%) were non-Indigenous and 27 (11.6%)
were of unknown Indigenous status.
Data is not currently available to indicate whether
independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
advice was provided to inform these decisions about
permanency orders (except in Victoria) and how parents
were enabled to participate in decisions, in accordance
with the partnership and participation requirements
of the Child Placement Principle. Part 3 of this report
highlights the many gaps in policy and practice in this
regard, highlighting the dangers of permanent care
decisions that can sever cultural and family connections
for children.
ADOPTION
Adoption, including open adoption, means that legal
ties between a child and her or his birth family are
irrevocably broken. Birth certificates are reissued
that reflect adoption orders – birth parent names are
replaced by adoptive parent names. Adopted Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children may never know
about, or experience, their cultural rights and heritage
if an adoptive parent determines this is not important.
While adoptions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children are low in number, implications of adoption
are life-long. These orders remove any domestic
legal responsibility of the state or the child’s carer to
support a child’s cultural connections. In the past year
some states and territories have sought to facilitate
adoption as a viable option for achieving permanency
for children in out-of-home care. Between 2008-09 and
2017-18, adoptions of children in out-of-home care
by carers increased by 76% (AIHW, 2018a). All states
and territories except Western Australia and Tasmania
provided data on the number of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children adopted in 2017-18, with four
jurisdictions reporting that no Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children had been adopted: Australian
Capital Territory, Northern Territory, South Australia,
and Victoria.
Data from AIHW indicates that the number of adoptions
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in
2017-18 was twice that in 2016-17. In 2017-18, nine
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were
adopted in comparison with four in the previous
38 FAMILY MATTERS
reporting year. Eight of the nine children were adopted
by non-Indigenous people (AIHW, 2018a). Although
these data are not broken down in a detailed way by
the relationship of the adoptive parent to the child,
it is reported that 63% of the adoptions in 2017-18
were by the child’s foster or kinship carers.
In 2017-18, New South Wales was responsible for
142 of the 147 adoptions by carers in Australia (AIHW,
2018a). According to data provided by New South
Wales, six Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
were adopted from out-of-home care in 2017-18
– all six children were adopted by non-Indigenous
carers. Despite calls from AbSec – NSW Child, Family
and Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation and
communities for a complete moratorium on adoption
for Aboriginal children, the NSW Government has
refused to rule out adoption as a permanency planning
option (NSW Family and Community Services, 2018a).
Indeed, recent legislative amendments passed under
the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection)
Amendment Bill 2018 by the NSW Government in
November 2018 set a two-year limit on the amount of
time a child can spend in out-of-home care. Under the
legislation, the Children’s Court decides the feasibility
of restoration within a reasonable period (not exceeding
24 months), and if determined unfeasible, the Court
can make a permanent care order, including adoption.
These amendments also enable adoption without
parental consent. The New South Wales provisions
undermine the very intent of the Child Placement
Principle and are deeply flawed in a system that fails
to redress systemic disadvantage, ensure access to
culturally safe supports, ensure informed Aboriginal
decision-making or have independent Aboriginal
oversight mechanisms.
1.4 CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE BY
2028: AN ALARMING PROJECTION OF
GROWING OVER-REPRESENTATION
The population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in out-of-home care is projected to double
in size in the next 10 years, by 2028. Not only will
the overall number of children in out-of-home care
continue to increase, the level of over-representation
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
will increase over time, which means that, if trends
continue, an far greater percentage of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children will spend time in out-
of-home care. The number of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in out-of-home care and rates
of entry must be substantially decreased immediately,
and rates of reunification increased, or the proportion of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-
home care will continue to increase rapidly.
Regular readers of the Family Matters report will note
that for the report this year, we have opted to provide
a 10-year projection of out-of-home care populations
instead of a 20-year projection as has been provided
in previous editions. While a 20-year projection serves
as a stark reminder of the severity of the problem,
there is a significantly large variability in the factors
that can impact out-of-home care population growth
rates across this time span. This is due to a variety of
issues, including difficulties in controlling for the high
level of uncertainty involved in making assumptions
about human behaviour, decision-making, policy,
and other contextual factors. This means that such
a long projection has to be interpreted considering
strict caveats. The already large difference between
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-
Indigenous populations shown in the 10-year projection
is enough to capture the calamitous future if nothing
is done to alleviate the growing out-of-home care
population for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people, and is more accurate than a 20-year projection.
The dark blue curve in Figure 6 represents the projected
population growth of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander out-of-home care population using the average
annual growth rate observed in the past five years, and
the light blue curve represents the growth of the non-
Indigenous out-of-home care population. Because each
year’s difference is compounded (that is, it gets worse
every year), the proportional difference grows larger and
more difficult to address with every passing year. Action
is required now to bring parity to entries and duration
of care for all children admitted to out-of-home care
going forward in order to eliminate over-representation.
Ultimately, unless the growth rate of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander population in out-of-home care
can be quickly and consistently brought to the absolute
lowest estimated annual growth rate (bottom of the blue
FIGURE 6 Population growth trajectories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous
children in out-of-home care in Australia, 2018-28
Population growth trajectories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous
children in out-of-home care in Australia, 2018-28
Standardised Population (2018= 1000)
Year
shaded area in Figure 6), successfully addressing over-
representation becomes increasingly unlikely. There
is significant variation across states and territories
in the rate at which the numbers of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care are
increasing. Graphs showing variations and projections
for each state and territory are included in Appendix I.
1.5 STATE AND TERRITORY GOVERNMENT
RESPONSES TO ADDRESSING DATA
GAPS AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
THE CAUSES AND GROWTH OF
OVER-REPRESENTATION
States and territories were asked to provide data to
address gap areas to inform the 2019 report. These data
are highlighted throughout the report. It is heartening
that states and territories responded to the request,
providing overall more data than was shared for the
2018 report.
As for previous reports, each state and territory
government was invited to provide information about
their current strategies, actions, and investments
to reduce over-representation. All jurisdictions
responded to the request and all responses expressed
commitment to the Family Matters campaign, reducing
the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care,
and improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and families.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 39
 Summaries of responses from states and territories about their efforts to reduce over-representation and support
the Family Matters campaign are provided below.
(Note: States and territories were requested to provide a maximum 500-word response. Where significantly greater input
was provided (ACT, NSW, WA, Vic.), responses have been summarised to include the introductory text for each initiative
and some strategies have been omitted. Full state responses are included on the Family Matters website.)
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Agreement
The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Agreement 2019-2028 (the Agreement) is a significant
commitment by the ACT Government, in partnership
with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected
Body, to achieving the vision of equitable outcomes
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Canberrans.
The ACT Government and community partners
are committed to self-determination as a guiding
principle in the delivery of programs and services.
Embedded within the Agreement are Relationship
Principles, Core Areas, and an Outcomes Framework
to track performance against the core outcomes.
Strong families and children and young people are
central to the actions to be taken over the 10-year
period of the Agreement.
Our Booris, Our Way
The Our Booris, Our Way review focuses on systemic
improvements to address the over-representation
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
young people in out-of-home care in the Australian
Capital Territory. The review seeks to better
understand why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children and young people enter care and to develop
strategies to:
• reduce the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and young people entering care
• improve their experience and outcomes while in
care
• examine ways for children to return home and
remain home safely.
Building Block One: Families enjoy access to quality,
culturally safe, universal and targeted services
necessary for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children to thrive.
In addition to the specific programs listed below, the
Community Services Directorate provides funding to
Gugan Gulwan Youth Aboriginal Corporation (Gugan
Gulwan) under the Child, Youth and Family Services
Program (CYFSP). Services are delivered within an
integrated service model targeting vulnerable and in
need Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children,
young people and their families. This service model
is a series of intentional interventions that work
together in an integrated way to promote safety,
permanency and wellbeing of children, young people
and families.
Building Block Two: Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people and organisations participate in and
have control over decisions that affect their children.
40 FAMILY MATTERS
Family Group Conferencing
The ACT Government provided $1.44 million over
four years in the 2018-19 Budget for the ongoing
delivery of Family Group Conferencing, and it
continues to be embedded in Child and Youth
Protection Services practice with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander families. From commencement
of Family Group Conferencing in November 2017
to June 2019, 29 families have been involved in a
Family Group Conference, involving 69 children and
young people. Forty-six Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children have not subsequently entered
care following a Family Group Conference. For the
remaining 23 children, decisions about the best
care arrangements have been made by the
extended family.
Building Block Three: Law, policy and practice in
child and family welfare are culturally safe and
responsive.
The ACT Government has committed to initiatives
to deliver policy and programs, which are culturally
responsive. In addition to the Our Booris, Our Way
review mentioned above, these initiatives work on
implementation of cross-government reform.
Implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child Placement Principle at a
national level
Community Services Directorate is participating in
the national work through the Child and Families
Secretaries’ meetings to support the implementation
of the Child Placement Principle across all states
and territories. The ACT is the co-sponsor with
Queensland of the Priority One Working Group under
the Fourth Action Plan for Protecting Australia’s
Children. This includes work to develop consistent
interpretation of the Child Placement Principle and
all five elements that underpin implementation,
the performance indicators and measures that
will demonstrate success and the process of data
collection and reporting on the indicators and
measures.
Building Block Four: Governments and services
are accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people.
Elected body
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected
Body (ATSIEB) members are elected representatives
from the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community with a mandate to be a strong voice
on issues affecting their communities to the ACT
Government.
NEW SOUTH WALES
Strategies
In 2017-18, the Department of Family and
Community Services (FACS) continue to make
significant shifts to reduce the over-representation
of Aboriginal Children and Young People in out-of-
home care. In 2018, we reported the development
of the Aboriginal Outcomes Strategy and the new
approach that would be implemented to improve the
outcomes for Aboriginal children and young people,
their families and their communities. Whilst we
acknowledge that we continue to have areas that
we can significantly improve on, we also have the
opportunity in 2019 to celebrate some areas that
we have made significant growth on since reporting
on 2018.
The NSW Practice Framework
The NSW Practice Framework, launched in
September 2017, brings together endorsed practice
approaches, reforms and research to guide FACS
child protection work across systems, policies
and practice. United by principles, language and
standards, the Framework puts children and
families at the forefront of FACS work.
Aboriginal Practice Support team
The Independent Review of Aboriginal Children
in Out-of-Home care is nearing completion.
The Office of the Senior Practitioner (OSP) has
led the FACS aspect of this review process and in
anticipation for the release of the report and its
recommendations, FACS has agreed in principle
to the establishment of an Aboriginal Practice
Support team that will sit within the OSP. The
structure, role and responsibilities of this team
are currently being scoped. While the detail has
not yet been determined, the sole focus of this
team will be about strengthening FACS practice
with Aboriginal families.
Their Futures Matter
Their Future’s Matter (TFM)’s Futures Planning
and Support (FP&S) initiative will provide mentoring
and other support for young people who are leaving
or have left out-of-home care from when they are
17 years until they turn 25 years of age (care
leavers) and will address the over-representation
of Aboriginal young people by ensuring that 40%
of the clients being supported are Aboriginal.
Permanency Support Program
FACS is currently undertaking one of the most
significant reforms to out-of-home care systems in
decades. The Permanency Support Program (PSP)
was introduced on 1 October 2017. PSP creates a
continuum of care across the delivery of services
for children and families and prioritises supporting
and maintaining children and young people with
family. PSP has changed the way we fund our service
providers. PSP funding processes set out new
expectations of the sector that include:
• working towards permanency from the time a
child or young person enters care
• collaborating more closely with FACS and other
services and supports to achieve the best possible
outcomes for children and young people
• targeting support packages to address the
specific needs of individual children, young people
and their families.
Aboriginal Case Management Policy
To support the implementation of the PSP in 2017,
AbSec – NSW Child, Family and Community Peak
Aboriginal Corporation was commissioned to develop
the Aboriginal Case Management Policy (ACMP).
The policy statement was published in October 2018
and followed by the Rules and Practice Guidance in
February 2019. This policy applies to all Aboriginal
children and young whether case managed by FACS
or Funded Service Providers.
Child protection legislative amendments
The NSW Government remains committed to
working with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal
organisations across NSW to increase Aboriginal
self-determination and Aboriginal participation in
child protection decision-making. Amendments
contained in the Children and Young Persons (Care
and Protection) Amendment Act 2018 that came into
effect on 4 February 2019 will help ensure that more
Aboriginal children and young people are supported
in culturally-safe environments.
Aboriginal families will have greater opportunities
to be involved in decisions about the care of their
children to reduce the number of Aboriginal children
entering out-of-home care e.g. amendments made
to Sections 37(1A), (1B), (1C) – Alternative Dispute
Resolution.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 41
 NORTHERN TERRITORY
Safe, Thriving and Connected: Generational Change
for Children and Families is the Northern Territory
(NT) Government’s implementation plan, addressing
recommendations from the Royal Commission
into the Protection and Detention of Children and
Young People in the Northern Territory (the Royal
Commission). This is accompanied by a budget
allocation of over $229 million in new funding to
strengthen early, targeted support for vulnerable
families while also fixing the child protection and
youth justice systems.
Universal and targeted services
Territory Families invested $6.5 million in the
construction of the Tennant Creek Child and Family
Centre – the first of 11 new centres to be built across
the Northern Territory over the next five years,
investing in fund community-driven activities, which
support families with children aged 0 to 5 years.
In 2018, Territory Families launched the Family
and Children Enquiry and Support (FACES) hotline.
This has already resulted in more families accessing
crucial supports before they hit crisis point. Through
our partnership with Northern Territory Council
of Social Service (NTCOSS) we are now expanding
the NT Social Services Directory. This online tool
provides invaluable information to families about
where they can access support and assistance.
Territory Families is also developing a community
education campaign that will promote early support
services, prompt families to ask for help before
a crisis and remove the stigma associated with
seeking help. Recognising the role of Aboriginal
organisations in providing services to Aboriginal
families, Territory Families has funded the Aboriginal
Medical Services Alliance NT to co-design an early
intervention service that can be delivered through
Aboriginal medical services.
Participation, control, and self determination
Territory Families is continuing to work with the
Mikan Reference Group in East Arnhem to effectively
identify and support kinship carers. Mikan is a
partnership between Territory Families and Yolngu
community representatives in East Arnhem Land
and provides advice to Territory Families on the
care and protection of Yolngu children. Territory
Families’ place-based staff are working closely with
community elders, local authorities and relevant
boards to increase local decision-making in relation
to concerns of safety of children and communities.
This includes targeted workshops with Aboriginal
community-controlled organisations and staff about
models and approaches to implement recognition
for cultural authority groups or entities to be involved
in this decision-making.
42 FAMILY MATTERS
Culturally safe and responsive systems
Territory Families developed and is implementing
the Aboriginal Cultural Security Framework,
which shapes a whole of agency approach to
building culturally proficient services, systems,
and governance. Over 550 people have contributed
to the development of the framework through
departmental and external partner and community
consultation. The Framework identifies how we can
strengthen partnerships with Aboriginal people and
communities, promote a workforce that encourages
understanding and respect for cultural diversity,
and work towards a system where Aboriginal
people are empowered to make decisions about
Aboriginal families.
Territory Families worked in co-design with a range
of stakeholders including Aboriginal community-
controlled health and legal services to develop the
Care and Protection Amendment Bill 2019, which
was introduced to the Legislative Assembly on 20
March 2019 and is due for debate in August 2019.
The Bill explicitly recognises the importance of
connection to family, culture, language and country
for Aboriginal children by introducing new principles
for consideration about the best interest of the
child; imposing requirements that the Government
engages with and provide information to children and
families in a manner and language they understand,
if necessary through the use of interpreters;
improving the rights of families and Aboriginal
representatives to participate in care planning
processes; ensuring care plans include cultural
components; and that notice of court applications
is provided to children and families in a language
and manner they understand.
Accountability
The Children and Families Tripartite Forum was
established in 2018 and provides a forum for
structured and sustained high level engagement
between the Northern Territory and Australian
governments and community sector regarding
children experiencing vulnerability, young people
and families, and child protection and youth justice
issues. The Forum held its first meeting on 23 July
2018 in Alice Springs and has held two further
meetings on 15 October 2018 in Darwin and 31
January 2019 in Alice Springs. Membership of the
Forum comprises representatives from the Northern
Territory and Australian governments, the Aboriginal
Peak Organisations Northern Territory (NTCOSS);
and North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency.
The Forum is chaired by Donna Ah Chee,
Independent Aboriginal Chair.
QUEENSLAND
The Queensland Government, in partnership with
Family Matters Queensland is committed to reducing
the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and families within
the child protection system in Queensland through
the implementation of the Our Way Strategy and
Changing Tracks Action Plans.
Key achievements in 2018-19, include amongst
others:
• the establishment of the Queensland First Children
and Families Board — a national first
• amendment of the Child Protection Reform Act
2017, commenced in October 2018, which supports
the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples to self-determination, and embeds the five
elements of the Child Placement Principle
• establishment of the Family Participation Program
to enhance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
family-led decision making across the child
protection system
• investment of $34.34 million per annum to roll out
all 33 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family
Wellbeing Services across Queensland
• implementation of three Empowering Families
Innovation Fund initiatives including:
- Empowering Families Innovation Grants
- First 1000 Days Australia initiative, in Moreton
Bay and Townsville, supporting families to give
their children the best start in life, and eight
early childhood development coordinators to
improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families’ linkages with the early childhood
education and care sector
• implementation of initiatives to strengthen
connections with and voices of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and young people,
parents and kin, to support community-controlled
sector practice leadership and development, and to
develop the cultural capability in the department.
The 12 remaining actions from the first Changing
Tracks Action Plan are on track to be completed
by the end of 2019. This includes the department
partnering with the Queensland Mental Health
Commission to contract the Healing Foundation
to develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Healing Strategy to enhance the social
and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in Queensland suffering
intergenerational trauma, violence and or grief
and loss. The department has also contracted
Winangali Pty Ltd to co-design a Queensland
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children
and Families Wellbeing Outcomes Framework to
identify outcomes, indicators and measures to
inform investment decisions, align efforts and help
track progress towards Our Way’s desired outcome
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and families to achieve parity with non-Indigenous
children across agreed wellbeing domains.
The Our Way Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has
been developed to monitor and assess impact and
outcome over the life of the Our Way strategy and
supporting Action Plans against key performance
indicators. This, along with targeted research
projects, will build the evidence base to inform
future strategy and investment to reduce the
disproportionate representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and families in
the child protection system in Queensland.
The Queensland First Children and Families Board
oversights the implementation and review of the
Our Way strategy to ensure it is making a difference
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and families and recently published its Changing
Tracks Progress Report May 2017 — December 2018.
The Board has met on three occasions over the
past 12 months.
The 2019-20 Budget provided $14.6 million over four
years, plus other investments, to implement new
and enhanced Our Way initiatives. This builds on the
$162.8 million already committed.
The second Changing Tracks Action Plan 2020-22
is currently under development in partnership with
Family Matters Queensland, the Board, government
and non-government partners and community.
It will prioritise actions that strengthen the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-
controlled sector to provide evidence based, early
intervention, prevention, reunification and transition
initiatives that support Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and families to experience the
best possible outcomes.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 43
 SOUTH AUSTRALIA
South Australia is committed to reducing over-
representation of Aboriginal children and young
people in the child protection system in partnership
with Aboriginal South Australians. Recent activity
includes the following:
• Appointed the first South Australian Commissioner
for Aboriginal Children and Young People, who
advises and advocates on both systemic and
individual issues for all Aboriginal children
and young people, with a key focus on health,
education, child protection and justice outcomes.
• Established the integrated child and family
intensive support system following release of the
state government’s early intervention strategy.
The strategy includes a core focus on improving
outcomes for Aboriginal children and their families
and commits the government to dedicated support
system that adheres to the national Family Matters
principles.
• Full commencement of the new child safety
legislative framework, which embeds the
commitment to participation and family-led
decision making. This was accompanied by
a commitment of $1.6 million to set up and
commission Family Group Conferencing with an
emphasis on culturally safe and responsiveness
for Aboriginal families.
• Released the South Australian Government
Aboriginal Affairs Action Plan 2019-20 which
incorporates a range of commitments including
the commitment to the development of the
Aboriginal Housing Strategy, implementation of the
Aboriginal Education Strategy, and of each agency
to develop a Reconciliation Action Plan.
• Finalised a MoAA describing how the Department
for Child Protection (DCP) will work with
Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation (NNAC)
to implement child protection commitments
contained within the Buthera Agreement between
NNAC and the state of South Australia.
• Launched the DCP Aboriginal Action Plan 2019-
20 bringing together related actions within an
integrated strategy within the Child Placement
Principle framework. This captures a range of
activity and commitments including:
- commitment to increased procurement from
Aboriginal organisations from 0.05% to at
least 3% of spending
- engagement of InComPro, an Aboriginal
organisation, to deliver a specialised residential
care model for Aboriginal young people
- supported the co-design and trial of an
Intensive Family Preservation Service in the
Western suburbs delivered by an ACCO
44 FAMILY MATTERS
- commitment to develop a procurement plan
for a trial of Aboriginal kinship carer supports
provided by Aboriginal organisations
- increasing partnerships with Aboriginal
stakeholders including support for the Family
Matters (SA) working group, Reconciliation SA
and the SA NAIDOC Committee
- commitment by DCP to increase Aboriginal
employment target from 4.8% to 5.5% in
twelve months (towards 10%) driven through
the implementation of the new DCP Aboriginal
Employment Strategy
- design and implementation of DCP’s new
Aboriginal Cultural Footprint training program,
a four-step cultural capability package
mandated for all staff
- development of a Family-led Decision-making
and Strengths-based Framework embedding
the commitment to self-determination for
Aboriginal families
- development of an Aboriginal-specific National
Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIA) pre-
planning tool to support access to culturally
responsive disability services.
- commitment to increase the number of
completed Aboriginal Cultural Identity
Support Tools
- implementation of the Winangay Aboriginal
Kinship Carer Assessment Tool.
• The Department of Child Protection has also:
- recruited an Aboriginal practice lead and
10 Aboriginal trainees
- hosted two two-day state forums for all
Aboriginal staff to engage on key issues,
practice and policy
- partnered with SNAICC to deliver workshops
to DCP staff to increase understanding and
implementation of the Child Placement
Principle
- embedded Aboriginal Service Provision
requirements across service agreement to
increase cultural safety and responsiveness
- continued to work to ensure DCP has capacity
to effectively implement the full aims of the
Principle including through the dedicated
Aboriginal Practice Directorate
- developed its first Reconciliation Action Plan
due for launch in August 2019.
TASMANIA
The Tasmanian Government shares the Family
Matters commitment to eliminating the over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in out-of-home care by 2040. Initiatives
that aim to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in
Tasmania include:
• Launch of the Strong Families Safe Kids Advice
and Referral Line, in December 2018, which
commenced a fundamental shift in the way child
protection services work in Tasmania. This service
created a new ‘single front door approach’ that
enables earlier intervention services for children,
young people, and families based on their needs.
• Development of a new Child Safety Practice
framework for the Child Safety Service. One of the
four key practice elements in the framework is
‘Being culturally responsive’. A plan is currently
being developed to implement the framework
throughout the Child Safety Service.
• Continued trial of the Intensive Family Engagement
Service (IFES). IFES provides evidence-based
intensive engagement, practical supports and
role modelling with families to prevent the need
for removal of children. The Tasmanian Aboriginal
Corporation (TAC) is one of four statewide IFES
providers and is the service provider for families
that identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
A further $7.5 million has been committed over
the next three years for additional intensive family
engagement services to better support families,
including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children.
• Delivery of the listening with our takila project,
by Leprena, the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander
Christian Congress, which built upon the work
of ya pulingina kani through shared stories of
empowerment and healing from survivors of family
violence in the Aboriginal community. The project
included a series of activities and events including
gatherings on country, co-delivered workshops
with Engender Equality, mental health first aid
training, and an eight-week TasTAFE / Aboriginal
training arts course to engage participants and
promote family safety messaging.
• Delivery of a speaking tour by the Tasmanian
Aboriginal Corporation to the Aboriginal
community about mental health, suicide
prevention and wellbeing by prominent Aboriginal
man, Joe Williams. This program was considered
to address the broader topic and support the
safety of Aboriginal families. The tour delivered five
sessions statewide including two youth-specific
sessions (two in Hobart, two in Launceston and
one in Burnie) to 74 participants.
• Release of a consultation paper for a Permanency
Framework, which focused on the National
Permanency Guiding Principles, inclusive of
Principle 2 Compliance with all five domains of
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle is supported and measured.
A draft framework will be developed and provided
for further consultation in late 2019.
• Release of the Tasmanian Child and Youth Wellbeing
Framework in June 2018, which provides a
contemporary and accessible definition of child
wellbeing to ensure that Tasmania’s service
system, including the broader community, has a
strong, common understanding of child and youth
wellbeing. This includes “having a positive sense
of culture and identity”. A range of practical tools
are being developed to support this work, including
the Child and Youth Wellbeing Assessment Tool
and Service Directory.
• Development of an Outcomes Framework for
Children and Young People in Out of Home Care
released by the Minister on 18 October 2018.
Work continues to develop a Companion Document
that defines an approach to monitor and report
against the Outcomes Framework.
• External and independent monitoring of the
out-of-home care system by the Commissioner
for Children and Young People, funded by the
Government over a three-year period. The
Commissioner for Children and Young People
released Laying the Foundations: A Conceptual Plan
for Independent Monitoring of Out-of-Home Care in
Tasmania outlining how independent and external
monitoring of the Out of Home Care system from
2018-19 onwards will be undertaken.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 45
 VICTORIA
The Victorian Government is committed to improving
the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and
families and to reducing the over-representation
of Aboriginal children in care. The government has
implemented a range of initiatives to address over-
representation.
The Roadmap for Reform: children and families
Roadmap for Reform is the Victorian Government’s
blueprint for transforming the child and family
system: focusing on earlier intervention and
prevention; reducing vulnerability; and equipping
children to reach their full potential.
Underpinned by Aboriginal self-determination
and self-management the Roadmap for Reform
provides opportunities to develop new models of
care and more connected pathways of care that
support cultural connection and improve outcomes
for Aboriginal children, young people and families.
For example, with the establishment of the new
Aboriginal kinship finding service, the Government
will better support children who cannot live with
their parents in kinship placements, strengthen
reunification where appropriate, and promote
placement stability.
Aboriginal Children’s Forum
Operating since 2016 and held quarterly, the
Aboriginal Children’s Forum (ACF) is convened by the
Minister for Child Protection and co-chaired with a
nominated chief executive officer from an Aboriginal
community-controlled organisation (ACCO). The
forum brings together ACCOs, community service
organisations (CSOs) and Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) staff to respond to the
over-representation of Aboriginal children in care by
delivering on priorities identified in the submission
Koorie Kids: Growing Strong in their Culture. From
June 2018, the ACF has adopted the priorities and
actions outlined in the Wungurilwil Gapgapduir:
Aboriginal Children and Families Agreement.
Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Children and Families
Agreement
Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Children and Families
Agreement signed by the then Minister for Families
and Children, and Aboriginal and community
representatives on 26 April 2018, sets out a vision for
the future where all Aboriginal children and young
people in Victoria are safe, resilient and thriving and
living in culturally rich and strong Aboriginal families
and communities.
The 2018-19 Victorian Budget allocated $53.3 million
to support implementation of Wungurilwil Gapgapduir
and the 2019-20 budget added an additional $23.7
million to implementing the Agreement.
46 FAMILY MATTERS
Transfer of case management and funding from
non-Indigenous providers to ACCOs
In partnership with the ACF the department
continues transferring case management of
Aboriginal children subject to child protection
orders and resources to ACCOs. The department
has agreed to targets set by the ACF to transfer
case management of all Aboriginal children in care
to ACCOs by the end of 2021. At June 2019, 708
(46%) of Aboriginal children and young people on
a contractible order in care were managed by an
ACCO. This is an increase of 250% since August
2017.
Aboriginal Children in Aboriginal Care
The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, Section
18, enables the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to authorise the
Aboriginal principal officer of an Aboriginal agency
to undertake specified functions and powers in
relation to a Children’s Court protection order for an
Aboriginal child or young person. Aboriginal Children
in Aboriginal Care, the operationalisation of Section
18, is a key provision supporting the principle of
Aboriginal self-management and self-determination.
Aboriginal Children in Aboriginal Care launched in
2017 at the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
(VACCA), has expanded in 2019 at the Bendigo and
District Aboriginal Co-operative, where the service is
known as Mutjang Bupuwingarrak Mukman, which
means ‘keeping our kids safe’ in Dja Dja Wurrung
language.
Aboriginal Kinship Finding Service
Following an invited call for funding, VACCA in
partnership with the First Nations Legal and
Research Services and the Koorie Heritage Trust was
selected to provide an Aboriginal Kinship Finding
Service. The new service includes the establishment
of a genealogical database to support early kinship
carer identification and connections to family,
community and culture for Aboriginal children
and young people involved with the Victorian child
protection system.
Improving responses to Aboriginal children
– cultural planning
An independent evaluation was undertaken on the
new model for cultural plans implemented in 2017.
The evaluation found support for the new model and
promotes additional guidelines for practitioners and
revised templates for cultural plans. The 2018-19
State Budget allocated $11.9 million over four years
to continue the new model of cultural planning,
thereby supporting the new model to become an
ongoing program.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The Western Australian (WA) Government is
committed to creating opportunities for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children, young people
and their communities. In February 2019, Premier
Mark McGowan announced the Government’s Our
Priorities Sharing Prosperity program. Our Priorities
outlines six key outcome areas, which aim to deliver
better outcomes for all Western Australians.
Two of the key outcome areas, ‘A Bright Future’
and ‘Aboriginal Wellbeing’, set out tasks to
implement real, positive change for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children.
Aboriginal Services and Practice Framework
2016 – 2018
The Aboriginal Services and Practice Framework
2016 – 2018 (the Framework) has been integral to
the work underpinning the child protection reforms
within Western Australia to improve outcomes
for Aboriginal children and families. Options
are currently being explored regarding a future
Framework, which will incorporate current projects
and strategies and reflect the Western Australian
Government’s focus on integrated service design.
Aboriginal Advisory Panel
An Aboriginal Advisory Panel to the Minister for
Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention
of Family and Domestic Violence; Community
Services, is under development and will convene in
2019 to provide cultural and expert advice to inform
government decisions affecting Aboriginal children,
families and communities.
The Early Years Initiative
The Early Years Initiative is an unprecedented
10-year partnership between the Government of
Western Australia, Minderoo Foundation and the
Telethon Institute. $49.3 million has been invested
in the Early Years Initiative, which responds to
research indicating that one in five children aged four
years and under in Western Australia is considered
developmentally vulnerable, as measured by the
Australian Early Development Census.
It supports local communities to implement a range
of evidence-based changes to make better use of
existing services and supports for families with
young children.
Regional Services Reform
The East and West Kimberley District Leadership
Groups continue to work with government, service
providers, Aboriginal organisations and local
leadership to find solutions to complex local issues
and to help improve the wellbeing of families in the
Kimberley. The District Leadership Groups include
representatives from state and Commonwealth
governments, local government, the community
services sector, ACCOs and industry.
West Pilbara Plan
The Western Australian Government continues to
work closely with Aboriginal elders and community
members. Under the West Pilbara Plan, the
Government has committed to focus a collectively
and coordinated approach in six priority areas.
Building Safe and Strong Families: Earlier
Intervention and Family Support Strategy
The procurement of the Intensive Family Support
Services, Family Support Networks, and the
Aboriginal In-Home Support Service are key
elements of the Early Intervention and Family
Support Strategy which focuses on four areas:
• delivering shared outcomes through collective
effort
• a culturally competent system
• diverting families from the child protection system
• preventing children entering out-of-home care.
Statutory Review of the Children and Community
Services Act 2004
The recommendations of the Statutory Review
align with the Department of Communities’ current
work to review the Permanency Planning Policy
and related practice guidance. The Department of
Communities is finalising its Stability and Connection
Policy, to replace its Permanency Planning Policy.
Stability and connection planning concerns much
more than a child’s care arrangement. It includes
alignment will all five elements of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
and a focus on relational permanence. Linked
closely with this policy and relevant legislative
recommendations, further work is occurring in
relation to cultural support planning, which is
identified as an important mechanism for improving
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children.
Building a Better Future: Out-of-Home Care Reform
in Western Australia
The Out-of-Home Care Reform Project Reference
Group (the Reference Group) is to provide advice
and support on the design and implementation of a
better out-of-home care and family support system
within Western Australia.
Aboriginal Family Safety Summit
In February 2019, the Aboriginal Family Safety
Summit (the Summit) was held by the Department of
Communities with experts and leaders in Aboriginal
family safety to determine next steps for progressing
a dedicated approach to Aboriginal family safety.
The Summit is part of the Department of
Communities’ 10 Year Strategy for Reducing Family
and Domestic Violence.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 47
48 FAMILY MATTERS
PART 2
DATA ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY
LEVEL FACTORS
2.1 OVERVIEW
Part 2 of this report focuses on the structural factors
that contribute to, and the drivers of vulnerability
for children and families. It reports on both service
access and measurable outcomes across domains
that impact most on safety, development and wellbeing
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Human development is a result of the interaction
between a variety of factors that are inherited from
ancestors and that are present in the environment in
which children grow and develop (Moore et al., 2017).
Evidence demonstrates that the period from conception
through the early years of a child’s life is critical in
providing strong foundations for lifelong physical and
mental health, and social and emotional wellbeing
(Ritte et al., 2016). When children do not feel safe, calm
or protected, the child’s opportunities for learning are
constrained. There is a cumulative negative effect on
learning and development when children are exposed
to adverse environments and experiences early in their
lives, and continue to be exposed to such experiences
(Moore et al., 2017).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child wellbeing
includes safety, health, culture and connections,
mental health and emotional wellbeing, home and
environment, learning and skills, empowerment and
economic wellbeing. These wellbeing domains are
inter-related – for example, having access to material
basics is essential to full participation in learning and
education, which contributes to safety and security.
Achievement of wellbeing outcomes depends on a
complex interplay between individual child and family
factors and broader community and societal factors,
which means focusing on just one wellbeing domain to
the exclusion of others will compromise overall child
wellbeing. Ensuring children grow up safe and cared
for requires commitments and actions from multiple
sectors (Council of Australian Governments, 2009).
The range of personal, family and social life issues
faced by parents and carers experiencing vulnerability
can prevent them from providing the positive, safe
and nurturing care environment that is needed for
a child. There are a variety of factors that may bring
children and families to the attention of child protection
agencies. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families, the drivers of child protection involvement are
a consequence of the economic, social and political
contexts in which families live (UNICEF, 2010). Poverty,
housing suitability and stability are described in
this section as structural drivers of child protection
intervention. These structural drivers are themselves
the consequence of broader factors relating to historical
and continuing racism and discrimination, including
particularly the inter-generational harm caused by
forced child removals of the Stolen Generations.
There needs to be education on the true history
of Australia and our Aboriginal culture, including
policy detrimental to our development and
generational trauma. We need more prevention
services that work with families to prevent child
removals, and opportunities for parents to gain
education prior to removal around parenting
and child abuse. We need teachers in rural and
remote communities to be more passionate
about educating our people, instead of coming
to do placements and receive the benefits and
then leaving. I also believe governments need to
take more responsibility for the wellbeing of our
families, for example, there needs to be more
government support services for mothers of all
ages. – Wilyakali woman, Broken Hill, 24 years old
There is clear evidence that prevention and early
intervention services have positive impacts on children’s
health and wellbeing. Family interventions are more
effective when applied early in children’s lives (Allen,
2013; Fox et al., 2015; Heckman, 2008). Whole-of-
population preventative measures not only improve
family capabilities and community wellbeing, but also
have a downstream effect in reducing risk, harms and
child maltreatment. Quality services which are initiated
during pregnancy, and continue throughout the early
years of life, can improve child developmental and
wellbeing outcomes, shift developmental delays,
and contribute to population-level outcomes.
Investment in primary prevention and early
intervention to strengthen families can provide
long-term social and economic benefits by disrupting
trajectories that lead to adverse adult outcomes.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 49
 This section describes the extent to which children and
families access high-quality universal and targeted
services. Available information is included on access to
relevant services, as well as data on key child outcomes
targeted by these services. The thematic areas
addressed are identified because of the evidence that
indicating that they are the most active or commonly
identified issues impacting on a child’s development,
wellbeing and safety. They include: maternal child
health, early childhood education and care, family
support services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation
services, family violence responses, and mental
health supports.
CHILDREN IN STOLEN GENERATIONS
HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCE THE IMPACTS
OF INTERGENERATIONAL TRAUMA
Building on its 2018 report exploring the impacts
of child removal on members of the Stolen
Generations and their descendants, a 2019 report
by AIHW and the Healing Foundation (2019e)
examines health and wellbeing outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged
under 15 who live in households with members of
the Stolen Generations. The selected outcomes
factors associated with familial vulnerability
includes poor health, poverty and truancy.
The findings indicate that children living in
a household with members of the Stolen
Generations were 4.5 times as likely to have
missed school without permission in the last
12 months, 1.8 times as likely to have poor self-
assessed health and 1.6 times as likely to live in
household with cash-flow problems in the last
12 months. Children living in households with
members of the Stolen Generations fared better
on two indicators related to cultural connection.
These children were twice as likely to identify with
a clan/tribal/language group and/or to recognise
a homeland.
2.2 STRUCTURAL DRIVERS OF CHILD
PROTECTION INTERVENTION
a) Poverty
There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating
the relationship between family poverty and the risk of
being subject to child protection intervention (Jonson-
Reid, Drake & Zhou, 2013; Morris et al., 2018; Slack,
Holl, McDaniel, Yoo & Bolger, 2004). It is now well
established that children growing up in poverty are
more likely to experience adverse child experiences that
are linked to child welfare involvement (Hughes, 2018).
Research demonstrates that families living in poverty
experience maternal distress, family violence, reduced
parental responsiveness and increased use of corporal
punishment (Bradley & Corwyn; Conger & Donnellan,
50 FAMILY MATTERS
2007 in Moore et al., 2017). A child’s quality of care,
the availability of learning opportunities and his or her
exposure to a wide range of stressors are all associated
with experiencing poverty (Moore et al., 2017).
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,
high rates of poverty stem from experiences of
colonisation, discrimination, forced child removal, and
the inter-generational impacts of resulting trauma
(The Healing Foundation, 2013). Linked with experiences
of poverty, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families
are over-represented amongst families subjected
to contemporary income management policies and
programs, including the ParentsNext program, that
further contribute to disempowerment of communities
(as discussed in Part 3 of this report). For Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children, adverse experiences
in childhood are often shaped through their connection
to adults and communities that are dealing with the
negative impacts of history, including dispossession
and cultural identity loss, as well as directly through
exposure to violence, abuse and neglect that occur
more commonly in communities experiencing poverty
and disadvantage (Atkinson, 2013). In particular,
neglect is far more commonly the primary reason for
substantiation of harm for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children than for non-Indigenous children
(AIHW, 2019c), reflecting the significant challenges for
families to access the resources and supports needed
to provide safe care.
There are a number of measures used to assess levels
of poverty. Examining the level of socio-economic
disadvantage amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander households is one measure that provides
an indication of the extent to which families are
experiencing poverty. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics produces a national population distribution as
determined by the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
(SEIFA) derived from Census data. SEIFA ranks areas
across Australia according to relative socio-economic
advantage and disadvantage. The distribution of the
non-Indigenous population is spread evenly across
the SEIFA deciles. The 2016 Census data show that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more
likely to live in the most disadvantaged areas, with 48%
living in the bottom fifth most disadvantaged areas,
compared to 18% of non-Indigenous people. In 2016,
only 5.4% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
lived in areas of high relative advantage, compared with
22% of non-Indigenous people (ABS, 2018).
Data about income poverty provides another useful
measure for assessing levels of poverty among
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The
poverty line is defined according to when a household’s
disposable (after-tax) income falls below a threshold
considered to be adequate to provide the basic
necessities of life (Australian Council of Social Services,
2018). Based on 2016 Census data, Markham and
Biddle (2018) use the modified OECD equivalence scale
that defines the poverty line as half the median income
of the total population. On this measure, the poverty
line in 2016 was $404 per week before housing costs.
Markham and Biddle’s (2018) analysis demonstrates
that nearly one in three (31.4%) Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples were living below the poverty
line.
DATA GAP
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
CHILD POVERTY RATES
There is currently no nationally available date
on rates of poverty among Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children, despite a growing body of
evidence indicating that, on the whole, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to
live in poverty than non-Indigenous people.
Recommendation: That nationally consistent
data be collected and reported on rates of poverty
among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children.
b) Housing (homelessness and housing
affordability)
Access to safe and healthy housing environments has
a substantial impact on the capacity of families to
provide safe and supportive care for children (Courtney,
Dworsky, Piliavin, & Zinn, 2005; Dworsky, Courtney, &
Zinn, 2007; Evans, 2006; Slack, Lee & Berger, 2007).
Housing refers not only to a physical dwelling, but the
social environment within which it is situated. The
physical condition includes a house’s state of repair,
plumbing, running water and ventilation. The social
dimensions of housing include the factors that influence
one’s sense of control over their home (affordability,
security and tenure type) and the domestic environment
(sense of personal safety and overcrowding)
(National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health,
2017). Housing quality, affordability, location and
appropriateness are all important determinants of
health and wellbeing. Problems with housing – for
example, homelessness, mortgage and rental stress,
and unstable housing tenure – are indicative of the
types of vulnerability and risk that can lead to children
coming to the attention of child protection authorities
(AHURI, 2012). Moreover, housing problems make it
more difficult for children to be reunified with their
family, if they are removed.
Among the factors that most impact the safety and
wellbeing of children is housing affordability (AHURI,
2014). The financial burden and insecurity associated
with a lack of affordable housing result in significant
stress on families that can negatively impact family
functioning (Robinson & Adams, 2008). Indeed,
studies have demonstrated that housing insecurity
places children at risk of abuse and neglect (Leslie,
2005; Warren & Font, 2015). Rental stress is one
measurement used to assess affordability and is
defined as paying more than 30% of household income
on rent payments (ABS, 2018). The 2016 Census
determined that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
householders are almost twice as likely to experience
rental stress as non-Indigenous households.
Data from the 2016 Census indicates that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children represent 25% of
the total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homeless
population while non-Indigenous children comprised
only 11% of the non-Indigenous homeless population
(AIHW, 2019a). The burden of homelessness on
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is further
reflected in their usage of specialist homelessness
services across Australia. In 2017-18, one in four (or 65,
200) individuals who accessed specialist homelessness
services identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander (AIHW, 2019a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people return more often to services than non-
Indigenous people and the period of support is getting
longer, and is longer than for non-Indigenous people.
The disparity between the rates of Indigenous and non-
Indigenous clients accessing homelessness services
in Australia continues to increase (Figure 7). In 2017-
18, across Australia, clients accessing homelessness
services were 9.4 times more likely to be Indigenous,
up from a rate ratio of 7.8 in 2011-12. It is concerning
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
continue to be over-represented as clients of specialist
homelessness services. In 2017-18, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children aged 0 to 5 years made
up the largest group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander clients. Furthermore, 25% of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander clients reported that family
violence – an identified high-risk factor for child abuse
and neglect – is the primary reason for accessing
specialist homelessness services, in comparison
with 23% in 2016-17.
While the disparity in accessing specialist
homelessness services amongst Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous clients
has remained relatively stable over the past year
(Figure 7), for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in remote and very remote areas, it continues
to widen (Figure 8). The disparity dropped in 2016-17
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being
17.7 times more likely than non-Indigenous people
to access a service in a remote or very remote area,
but has climbed to 18.6 times more likely in 2017-18.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 51
 FIGURE 7 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous clients accessing specialist
homelessness services in Australia, 2011-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous clients
Rate ratios comparing Indigenous
accessing specialist and non-Indigenous
homelessness accessing
services in Australia, 2011-18 specialist
homelessness services by remoteness in Australia

25.0
10. 0 9. 4
9. 1 9. 2
8. 7
9. 0 8. 2 8. 4 20.1
20.0 7. 8 18.6
8. 0 18.1 17.7

7. 0 15.3
15.0
6. 0
Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
ratio

homelessness services by remoteness in Australia

Ratio Rate
ratio

5. 0 10.2
Rate

9.4
Rate

10.0
4. 0 25.0 10.2 10.3 10.4
9.1 9.2 9.5
8.7
3. 0 7.4 7.320.1
6.7 6.9 7.1
5.0 6.2 6.6 20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7
2. 0
15.3
1. 0 15.0
Rate ratio

0.0
0. 0 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-159.4 2015-16
10.2 2016-17 2017-18
10.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Financial
2014-15year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
10.2 10.3 10.4
9.1 9.2 9.5
Financial year
8.7

Indigenous: major cities Financial

5.0 Year
Indigenous:
6.2 inner/outer
6.6 regional 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3

Indigenous: remote/very remote

Indigenous
Aboriginal
Non-Indigenous
and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
0.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Source:
Source:Specialist
SpecialistHomelessness
Homelessness Services
Services Annual
Annual Report,
Report, WEB 99 (AIHW,
(AIHW, 2015)HOU
2015), WEB299
162(AIHW,
(AIHW2019b)
2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b) Financial year
Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015)HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional

Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)
FIGURE 8 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people accessing specialist
homelessness services by remoteness in Australia, 2011-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people
accessing specialist homelessness services by remoteness in Australia, 2011-18
Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
Rate ratios
Rate
comparing
ratios comparing
homelessness Indigenous
services Indigenous
and non-Indigenous
by remotenessandinnon-Indigenous
accessing
Australia accessing
specialistspecialist
homelessness
homelessness
services services
by remoteness
by remoteness
in Australia
in Australia
25.0

25.0 25.0
20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
20.1 20.1
17.7
20.0 20.0 18.1 18.1 18.6 18.6
15.3 17.7 17.7
Ratio Rate

15.0
15.3 15.3
Rate ratio

15.0 15.0
Rate ratio

Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
10.0
10.2 10.2 10.3 10.4
9.4 9.4 10.2
10.0 10.0 9.1 9.2 9.5
8.7
10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4
9.2 6.9
9.2 9.5 7.1
9.5 7.4 7.3
5.0 6.2 8.7 6.6
8.7 9.1 9.1
6.7
6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3
5.0 5.0
6.2 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7

0.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0.0 0.0
Financial year
2011-12 2011-122012-13 2012-132013-14 2013-142014-15 2014-152015-16 2015-162016-17 2016-172017-18 2017-18
Financial Year
Financial year Financial year
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander: major cities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander: inner/outer regional
Indigenous:
Indigenous: major
Indigenous:
remote/very cities major cities
remote Indigenous: inner/outer
Non-Indigenous Indigenous:
regional
inner/outer regional

Indigenous: remote/very
Aboriginal and Indigenous:
Torres Straitremote
remote/very
Islander: remote
remote/very Non-Indigenous
remote Non-Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)
Source:Specialist
Source: Specialist
Source:
Homelessness
SpecialistServices
Homelessness Homelessness
Services Annual
Annual Services
Report,
Report, Annual
WEBWEB Report,
99 (AIHW,
99 (AIHW, WEB2015),
2015), 99 (AIHW,
WEB WEB
162 162
2015),
(AIHW (AIHW
WEB
2016), 2016),
162
HOU 299(AIHW
HOU 299
2016),
(AIHW, (AIHW,
2019b)HOU2019b)
299 (AIHW, 2019b)

52 FAMILY MATTERS

DATA GAP
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING QUALITY
Data gaps exist in relation to quality of housing,
problems of housing and overcrowding, as it
relates to children and families entering or
involved with the child protection system.
Recommendation: Develop data collection and
reporting on housing quality, including structural
conditions for families with children by Indigenous
status.
Recommendation: Develop data collection and
reporting on specialist homelessness service
access specifically for children and families
in contact with child protection services by
Indigenous status.
2.3 ACCESS TO QUALITY, CULTURALLY
SAFE UNIVERSAL AND TARGETED
SERVICES
Family Matters Building Block 1 is “All families enjoy
access to quality, culturally safe, universal and
targeted services necessary for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children to thrive”. As discussed in the
introductory section to this chapter, the provision of
high quality services that support family strengthening
can increase the likelihood of parents being able to
provide safe and nurturing care for their children and
prevent risk factors that may lead to child protection
involvement (Centre for Community Child Health,
2018). The extent to which children and families have
access to, and receive, high-quality universal and
targeted services is described in this section. Available
information is included on access to relevant services,
as well as data on the child outcomes that these
services aim to improve.
a) Maternal and child health
Inequality starts early for children. Pregnancy, birth
and early childhood are critical transition periods for
families, especially mothers and infants, and present a
time of great opportunity for healthy growth, learning
and development, as well as to reduce vulnerabilities
associated with child protection notifications (Holland,
2015).
While most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
women, infants and families do well and thrive, there
remain significant proportions of poor maternal
outcomes, perinatal outcomes, and infants who do
not get the best start to life. For expectant mothers,
experiences of disadvantage are closely linked to a
range of factors that affect the healthy development of
children during pregnancy and early in a child’s life. Key
factors that negatively impact child development at this
critical stage include domestic violence, psychological
stress, substance misuse, and poor nutrition (Gibberd et
al., 2019; Moore et al., 2017).
Despite these heightened risks, women from the most
disadvantaged areas, and particularly those living
in rural and remote areas, are also the least likely
to access critical antenatal care. This is particularly
evident during the first trimester when risk of harm to
the foetus is heightened and where service links and
referrals are best established (Moore et al., 2017).
Antenatal care is an important step in establishing a
trusted relationship between the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander family and service professionals, and
can be a critical pivot in the trajectory of an infant’s life
as it opens the door to many other services on referral
– not just maternity services. Regular antenatal care
that commences early in pregnancy has been found to
have a positive effect on health outcomes for mothers
and infants (Eades, 2004; Australian Health Ministers
Advisory Council [AHMAC], 2012; Arabena et al, 2015).
Antenatal care is especially important for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander women who are at higher risk
of giving birth to pre-term and low-birthweight babies,
and who have greater exposure to other risk factors and
complications such as anaemia, poor nutrition, chronic
illness, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and high
levels of psychosocial stressors (de Costa & Wenitong,
2009; AHMAC, 2012).
A number of risk factors experienced by Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander women during pregnancy,
including family violence and substance misuse,
are also associated with a heightened risk of pre-
birth notifications to child protection (Taplin, 2017).
Evidence indicates that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander infants less than one year old are being
removed and placed in out-of-home care at increased
rates (O’Donnell et al., 2019). The provision of early
intervention supports to vulnerable families during
pregnancy, including antenatal care, is a crucial
opportunity to address risk factors that place them at
risk of child protection involvement and prevent the
removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
at birth.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 53

CASE STUDY
CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL
CONGRESS’ NURSE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AND
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES,
NORTHERN TERRITORY
Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (Congress)
provides a range of child and family services,
including evidence-informed early childhood health
and development programs and parenting and
family support programs.
Family Partnership Program
Congress’ Family Partnership Program (FPP) is run
in partnership with the Australian Nurse-Family
Partnership Program. It is a voluntary maternal and
child home visiting service for mothers of Aboriginal
children (during pregnancy and up to two years post
birth). Nurses and Aboriginal community workers
support mothers to: stay healthy during pregnancy,
make their homes safe for them and their families,
access relevant services, set goals and work out
ways to reach them, develop job skills or continue
education and connect with other mothers.
A 2018 study of the program showed that it has
had a major impact on preventing child neglect
and Aboriginal children entering out-of-home care.
From 2009 to 2015, compared to matched controls,
children of families on the program were 62% less
likely to have any episode of substantiated neglect
and the children of first-time mothers were 94%
less likely to spend any annualised days in out-of-
home-care.
In addition to the FPP, Congress’ family support
services aim to prevent child neglect and entries
into out-of-home care by working with highly
vulnerable families, using evidenced-informed
programs focused on primary and secondary
prevention. In 2018 Congress provided a service
to 62 families and a total of 153 children. Only one
child on the Intensive Family Support Program was
placed in out-of-home care and no child benefiting
from the Targeted Family Support Service entered
care.
Source: Central Australian Aboriginal Congress
While the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
reports on the number of unborn children who receive
a child protection service, this is defined as beginning
at the investigation of a notification (AIHW, 2019d). Data
is not reported on in jurisdictions where legislation
does not allow for investigation prior to the child’s
birth: Northern Territory and South Australia. Victoria
does not consider unborn children to be in the scope of
child protection, therefore unborn reports are excluded
from the Child Protection National Minimum Data Set
reporting.
54 FAMILY MATTERS
Figure 9 describes the number of unborn children
receiving a child protection service in New South Wales,
Queensland, Western Australia and Australian Capital
Territory. In Queensland, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children accounted for 51.3% (417) of unborn
child reports. In New South Wales 45.7% (218) of unborn
reports were for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, and 60.7% (310) of unborn reports in Western
Australia were for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children. There were no unborn reports for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children in the Australian
Capital Territory.
Although Victoria cannot begin a child protection
investigation prior to a child’s birth, under the Children,
Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic.), the statutory agency
can receive an unborn child report, share information
with other service providers for the purpose of
assessing risk and refer the mother to a child and
family service to provide advice, service and support
(Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS],
2019b). In the two-year time period between April 2017
and March 2019, 146 out of 702 (21%) unborn reports
for Aboriginal children progressed to out-of-home care
within 12 months of birth. This is significantly higher
than the non-Indigenous cohort (13%) (DHHS, 2019a).
While initiating antenatal care in the first trimester is
a significant indicator for future service engagement,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are less
likely to access antenatal care in the first trimester of
pregnancy and, overall, access less antenatal care visits
than non-Indigenous women.
Figure 10, (AIHW, 2019c), shows that in 2017, 62.9% of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers attended
at least one antenatal care session in the first trimester
of pregnancy. From 2012 to 2017, the proportion of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers who
attended antenatal care in the first trimester of
pregnancy increased from 50.5 to 62.9%. However,
in 2017 the age-standardised proportion of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander mothers who attended
antenatal care in the first trimester was still lower
than for non-Indigenous mothers (by 7.8 percentage
points, 62.9% compared with 70.7%, respectively).
The health of a baby at birth is a determinant of their
health and wellbeing throughout life (AIHW, 2018b).
Birthweight is a key indicator of infant health and a
determinant of a baby’s chance of survival and health
later in life (AIHW, 2018b). Babies were more likely to be
born both small for their gestational age and of a low
birthweight if their mothers smoked during pregnancy,
if their mothers were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander and if they were twins or triplets (AIHW, 2018b).
Figure 11 shows that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander babies are twice as likely to have a low
birthweight than non-Indigenous babies. This data
confirms the importance of early engagement in
antenatal care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
women. To address this disparity and highlight its
importance, one of the Closing the Gap Refresh draft
targets is for 90-92% of babies born to Aboriginal
FIGURE 9 The number of unborn Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children receiving
child protection services by jurisdiction, 2017-18

The number of unborn Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
receiving child protection
Unborn services
receiving child by jurisdiction,
protection services2017-18
Indigenous Non-Indigenous
450

400

350

300
Number of Children

Number of Children

250

200

150

100

50

0
NSW Qld WA ACT

Source: Table S3, AIHW (2019)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous

Source: Table S3, AIHW (2019)

FIGURE 10 Age-standardised percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous
mothers who attended at least one antenatal care session during the first trimester, 2012-17

Age-standardised percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous

mothers who percentage
Age-standardised attended atofleast one who
mothers antenatal care
attended atsession
least oneduring thecare
antental first trimester,
session during2012-17
the
first trimester (2012 - 2017)
75

70

65

60
Percent
Percent

55

50

45

40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Year
Indigenous Non-indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
Source: Table 2.1, Australia's mothers and babies data visualisations (AIHW, 2019)

Source: Table 2.1, Australia’s mothers and babies data visualisations (AIHW, 2019)

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 55

 FIGURE 11 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous babies born with low
birthweight, 2012-17

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous babies
born with low birthweight, 2012-17

Rate
1.90 ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
1.80

25.0
1.70

1.60 20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7
1.50
Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
Ratio Rate

15.3
15.0 1.40 homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
Rate ratio

1.30 9.4 10.2 25.0

10.0
10.2 10.3 10.4
20.1
1.20 8.7 9.1 9.2 20.0 9.5 18.1 17.7
18.6

6.9 7.1 15.3 7.4 7.3

5.0 6.6 6.7
1.10 6.2 15.0
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
0.0 1.00 10.0
10.3 10.4
10.2
2011-12 2012 2012-13 2013 2013-14 2014 8.7
2014-15 2015 9.1
2015-16 2016
9.2
2016-17
9.5
2017 2017-18
6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3
5.0 6.2 6.6 6.7
Financial
Year year
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
Indigenous: major cities 0.0 Indigenous: inner/outer regional
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Financial year
Indigenous:
Source: Table 4.2, Australia’s mothers remote/very
and babies remote
2017 (AIHW, 2019b) Non-Indigenous
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional
Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016),
Indigenous:HOU 299 remote
remote/very (AIHW, 2019b) Non-Indigenous

FIGURE 12 Child mortality rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous 0 to 4 year olds,
Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)

1998-2017

Child mortality rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous 0 to 4 year olds,
1998-2017
Child mortality rates for 0 to 4 year olds (1998-2017)
300 Child mortality rates for 0 to 4 year olds (1998-2017) 3
300 3

250 2.5
250 2.5
Deaths per 100000 persons

200 2
Deaths per 100000 persons

200 2
Rate per 1000

Rate Ratio
Rate

150 1.5
Rate Ratio

150 1.5
Ratio

100 1
100 1

50 0.5
50 0.5

0 0
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year
2007
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
ATSI Non-indigenous
Year Rate Ratio
Note: Data fromm NSW, QLD, WA, SA and ATSI
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
NT Non-indigenous
Non-Indigenous Rate
Rate Ratio
Ratio

Source:
Note:Figure
Data 5.7.1
frommAustralia's
NSW, QLD, Health
WA, 2016
SA and(AIHW,
NT 2016), Closing the Gap Report (DPMC, 2018, 2019)
Source: Figure 5.7.1 Australia's Health 2016 (AIHW, 2016), Closing the Gap Report (DPMC, 2018, 2019)
Note: Data from NSW, QLD, WA, SA and NT
Source: Figure 5.7.1 Australia’s Health 2016 (AIHW, 2016), Closing the Gap Report (DPMC, 2018, 2019)

56 FAMILY MATTERS
and Torres Strait Islander mothers to have a healthy Torres Strait Islander children were substantially less
birthweight by 2028. likely than their non-Indigenous peers to be enrolled
in preschool. The National Partnership Agreement to
The gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
achieve access to preschool for every child in the year
and non-Indigenous child mortality rates has been
before school drove sustained effort and investment by
widening since 2015 (Figure 12), with child mortality
governments, community organisations and providers
rates for 0 to 4 year olds 2.41 times higher for
(COAG, 2008). Nationally, in 2017 the attendance rate of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children than
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children rose to
non-Indigenous children.
be on par with that of non-Indigenous children, and has
remained that way in 2018 (Figure 13). However, there
b) Early childhood education and care are substantial variations between jurisdictions (Figure
There is compelling evidence that high-quality early 14). Attendance rates in the Northern Territory remain
education can amplify children’s development and consistently low, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
enhance lifelong social and emotional wellbeing. Islander children half as likely to attend a preschool
This is particularly true for children who experience program in the year before schooling (Figure 14).
disadvantage early in life (McLachlan, Gilfillan &
Gordan, 2013). Participation in high-quality education As Aboriginal people we need to embed our
for at least two years improves children’s readiness for traditional morals and values into the lives of
school and their life chances in the long term (Pascoe our children. We’re too divided as people and we
& Brennan, 2017). In relation to Aboriginal and Torres need to begin to sew all our stories together, to
Strait Islander children in particular, evidence suggests move forward as one, with a united voice.
that those children who attended preschool were - Wilyakali woman, Broken Hill, 24 years old
significantly less likely to be developmentally vulnerable
The gains in access to preschool education in the year
than those who did not attend preschool in three of the
before school have not been matched by gains in
five domains, with the biggest differences being noticed
access to other early childhood services. Aboriginal
in language and cognitive skills (Biddle & Bath, 2013).
and Torres Strait Islander children remain under-
On a positive note, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander represented in early childhood education and care
children’s enrolment in preschool has significantly (ECEC) services such as long day care, family day care
increased in recent years. In 2012, Aboriginal and and out-of-school hours care.

FIGURE 13 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
aged 4 and 5 years attending a preschool program in the year before schooling, 2012-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children
aged 4 and 5 years attending a preschool program in the year before schooling, 2012-18

1.20

1.00
1.02 1.02

0.93 1.02 1.02

0.80
0.82 0.93
0.78
0.78
0.75
0.75 Rate
0.82
ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
Rate ratio
Ratio Rate

0.71
0.71
0.60 homelessness services by remoteness in Australia

25.0
0.40
20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7

0.20 15.3
15.0
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
0.00 10.0
10.2 10.3 10.4
2012 2013 2014 2015 9.1 2016 9.2 2017 9.5 2018
8.7
Indigenous
5.0 Year
Non-Indigenous6.6 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3
6.2

Note: In 2016, a new state-specific Year Before FullAboriginal

Time Schooling
and Torres(YBFS) definition was used.
Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
0.0
Source: Table 3A.31, 3A.36, Chapter 3 (SCRGSP, 2017) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Table 28 and Appendix 4 (Preschool Education Australia, 2017, 2018, 2019) Financial year

Note: In 2016, a new state-specific Year Before Full Time Schooling (YBFS) definition was used.
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional
Source: Table 3A.31, 3A.36, Chapter 3 (SCRGSP, 2017)
Table 28 and Appendix 4 (Preschool Education Australia, 2017, 2018, 2019) Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 57

 FIGURE 14 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children aged 4 and 5 years
attending a preschool program in the year before schooling, by jurisdiction, 2018

Rate
Rate ratiosratios comparing
comparing Indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Straitand non-Indigenous
Islander children
and non-Indigenous aged
children aged 4 and
4 and 5 attending
5 years
a preschool program in the year before schooling, by jurisdiction, 2018
years attending a preschool program in the year before schooling in 2018
1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80 Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist

Rate ratio

homelessness services by remoteness in Australia

Ratio Rate

0.60
25.0

20.1
0.40 20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7

15.3
15.0
0.20
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
10.0
10.2 10.3 10.4
0.00 9.1 9.2 9.5
8.7
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT 6.9
Aust 7.1 7.4 7.3
5.0 6.2 6.6 6.7

Indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
0.0
Not e: In 2016, a new st at e-specific Year Before Full Time Schooling (YBFS) definition was used.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Financial year
Source: Table 28 and Appendix 4 (Preschool Education Australia, 2019)
Note: In 2016, a new state-specific Year Before Full Time Schooling (YBFS) definition was used. Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional
Source: Table 28 and Appendix 4 (Preschool Education Australia, 2019)
Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)

Across Australia, there are striking disparities in access income families receiving full-time, high quality
to Commonwealth-funded services such as long day educational intervention in a childcare setting, from
care, family day care and out of school hours care. infancy through to age five. Each child receives
Across Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander personalised educational activities, focusing on social,
children attend these services at half the rate (50%) emotional and cognitive areas of development with
of their non-Indigenous peers (Figure 15). This figure particular emphasis on language. The Abecedarian
has remained consistently low. There are significant Approach Australia (3a) is an adaptation for young
differences between the jurisdictions, however, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in
attendance rates varying from 17% in the Northern remote communities. American longitudinal studies
Territory to 61% in Victoria. identified significant results, including that by age
30, participants were 42% more likely to have been
This data is concerning because it is well established
in recent employment; 81% less likely to have been
that participation in high-quality early childhood
recently receiving welfare; and four times as likely to
education, for at least two years before school, improves
have graduated from high school than those who did
children’s school readiness and their life chances in
not participate in the program (Campbell et al., 2012;
the long term (Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). This has
Sparling et al., 2007).
even more impact for children who have, or are
experiencing disadvantage (Sparling, Ramey & Ramey, The Australian Early Development Census provides a
2007). It is evident that Aboriginal and Torres Strait measure of children’s development at the time they
Islander children who attend preschool are significantly commence full-time schooling. Data are collected in
less likely to be developmentally vulnerable than five areas or domains: physical health and wellbeing;
those who do not attend preschool in three of the five social competence; emotional maturity; language and
Australian Early Development Census domains, with cognitive skills; and communication skills and general
the biggest differences shown in the language and knowledge. Whilst most Aboriginal and Torres Strait
cognitive skills domain (Biddle & Bath, 2013). Islander children start school on track for a positive
educational experience, a significant proportion
The Abecedarian program is one example of an
begins at a disadvantage. The 2018 Australian Early
early learning program that demonstrates improved
Development Census showed that Aboriginal and
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Torres Strait Islander children are twice as likely to be
children. The program involves children from low-

58 FAMILY MATTERS
FIGURE 15 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children aged 0 to 5
attending Australian Government CCB approved child care services, by jurisdiction, 2018

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children aged 0 to 5 attending
Rate ratios comparing
Australian Indigenous
Government andchild
CCB approved non-Indigenous children aged
care services, by jurisdiction, 2018 0 to 5
attending Australian Government CCB approved child care services in 2018
1.20

1.00

0.80
Ratio Rate

Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist

Rate ratio

0.61
0.60 0.58 homelessness services
0.54 by remoteness in Australia
0.51 0.50
0.49

25.0
0.40 0.38
0.35
20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7

0.20 15.3 0.17

15.0
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
10.0
0.00 10.3 10.4
10.2
9.2 9.5
NSW Vic Qld WA SA
8.7 Tas
9.1 ACT NT Aust
6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3
5.0 6.2 6.6 6.7
Indigenous Non-Indigenous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
Note: CCB refers to Child Care Benefit 0.0
Source: Table 3A.12, Chapter 3 (SCRGSP, 2018) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Note: CCB refers to Child Care Benefit Financial year
Source: Table 3A.12, Chapter 3 (SCRGSP, 2018)
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional

Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)

FIGURE 16 Rate ratios comparing developmentally vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous
children in Australia, 2009-18
Rate ratios comparing developmentally vulnerable
Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in Australia
Rate ratios comparing developmentally vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
and non-Indigenous children in Australia, 2009-18
Vulnerable on 1 or more domains Vulnerable on 2 or more domains Non-Indigenous
3.50

3.00
2.69
2.60 2.57 2.55
2.50
Rate ratio

2.00 2.12
Ratio Rate

2.07 2.02 2.02

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2009 2012 2015 2018
Rate ratios comparing Year
developmentally vulnerable
Year
Source: Table 19 (AEDC, 2016), Table 18 (AEDC, 2019) Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in Australia
Vulnerable on 1 or more domains Vulnerable on 2 or more domains Non-Indigenous
3.50
Source: Table 19 (AEDC, 2016), Table 18 (AEDC, 2019)
3.00
2.69
2.60 2.57 2.55
2.50
Rate ratio

2.00 2.12 2.07 2.02 2.02 THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 59

1.50

1.00
 vulnerable in one or more domains of development
than their non-Indigenous peers. Deeply concerning is
that they are even more likely to be vulnerable in two
or more domains. There has not been any significant
improvement on these measures since 2015 (Figure 16).
THE NEW CHILD CARE PACKAGE
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
currently have substantially less access to
Commonwealth-funded early childhood services
than their non-Indigenous peers. The New Child
Care Package (the Package), introduced in July
2018 is likely exacerbating this inequity. SNAICC
has been consulting regularly with a large network
of child care service providers for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in every state and
territory to monitor and understand the impact of
the Package on children and families. In May 2019,
SNAICC undertook a survey that was completed
by 54 early childhood education and care services
that collectively support over 1700 Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children, nationwide. Fifty-
eight per cent of the 31 services that responded
to a question about hours of access reported that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are
accessing fewer hours of early education and care
services because of the Package. The introduction
of an Activity Test, which halves subsidised hours
of child care to just 12 hours per week for many
low income families who do not meet work or
study requirements, is excluding Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children from accessing
the early education that they need. Specifically,
45% of the 31 services that responded to a
question about reasons for reduced hours told
SNAICC that children are accessing fewer hours
because of the activity test.
The introduction of a ‘user pays’ model instead of
the previous budget-based funding model, coupled
with reduced attendance rates, has resulted in
some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander early
years education and care services accumulating
debt and raising concerns about their immediate
and long-term financial viability. The greatest
challenge for services reported in SNAICC’s survey
as a result of the transition to the Package was
managing debts from families who are unable to
pay, with 67% of the 24 services that responded to
a question about challenges highlighting this.
Services also reported a very high burden of
additional, unfunded administrative and family
support work as a result of the introduction of
the Package and requirement for families to
be registered with Centrelink. The increased
administrative workload was cited in SNAICC’s
survey as the second greatest challenge for
services as a result of the transition to the Package,
with 54% of 24 services highlighting this.
60 FAMILY MATTERS
THE VITAL ROLE OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES
STRAIT ISLANDER EARLY YEARS SERVICES
A substantial number of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children attend services including
Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services (MACS)
and Aboriginal Child and Family Centres (ACFCs). MACS
and ACFCs provide culturally-centred, community-
based services that offer long day care and at least one
other form of child care or support service, and often
many additional forms of child, family and community
support. These services do not cater only to the children
who come through the doors for specific programs, but
rather seek to support all children and their families
who may be in need (SNAICC, 2016). They help to
build stronger communities by nurturing strong local
leadership, a skilled workforce and connected families
(Brennan, 2013). The services connect vulnerable
families to an array of integrated services that are
designed to meet locally determined priorities and
needs, and to build Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
workforce capacity, with 115 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander staff employed in New South Wales ACFCs
alone in 2014 (CIRCA, 2014).
The role of both ACFCs and MACS in reaching out to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who
are not otherwise accessing early education and
care services illustrates the positive impact of local
ownership of such services. According to Trudgett and
Grace (2011), “the establishment of [MACS] centres
is potentially the most important contributor to the
decrease in the discrepancy between the rates of
Indigenous and non-Indigenous enrolment in early
childhood services” (p. 18). Similarly, the evaluation of
the New South Wales ACFCs in 2014 confirmed that, on
average, 78% of children attending child care through
the ACFCs in New South Wales had not previously
accessed early education and care (CIRCA, 2014).
Since the introduction of the Package in 2018 and the
ending of the Budget Based Funded Program that
previously supported MACS, the introduction of a new
Community Child Care Fund has enabled some services
to maintain levels of services despite the challenges of
transitioning to the new system of child care, though
this fund has excluded most Aboriginal Child and Family
Centres. However, despite this support, the long-term
sustainability of these vital services is at risk due to
reported reduced rates of participation by Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander families (see boxed text
above: The Impact of the New Child Care Package).
This issue needs to be urgently revisited so that these
evidence-based models of practice and empowerment
are supported, built upon and not lost.
c) Investment in family support services
Prevention and early intervention programs and services
are essential for strengthening families and enabling
them to provide the best possible environment for their
children. Core service types that are identified as critical
in supporting families experiencing vulnerabilities
include: intensive family support to preserve and reunify
families where there are child protection concerns;
in-home parent support services; and other general
family support including casework support for families
experiencing intermittent or lower-level difficulties.
The proportion of financial resources allocated to early
intervention and prevention provides some indication
of Australia’s commitment to implementing a public
health approach to achieving child safety and wellbeing.
However, these data should be interpreted with caution,
as there are significant inconsistencies in the ways the
states and territories define, and report on expenditure
related to, family support services.
Publicly reported state and territory expenditure on
child protection and family support services is not
available by Indigenous status nationally, which means
that there is no clear picture of whether Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander families receive an equitable
share of resources relative to needs. However,
examination of recurrent expenditure provides a useful
indication of the level of intensive family support
provided to families for the purposes of preservation
FIGURE 17 Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia, 2017-18
Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia, 2017-18
Out-of-home care
$3,412,348,945
58.5%
Protective intervention
services
$1,423,379,270
24.4%
Source: Table 16A.7 (SCRGSP, 2019)
or reunification/restoration, as compared to expenditure
on protective intervention services – for example,
receiving reports of child maltreatment, investigation
and assessment of maltreatment concerns, children’s
court proceedings, and child protection interventions –
and out-of-home care services.
We need a youth support/hub program which is
designed for our youth. Where it is easy for our
youth to access information with also getting
support from a support worker.
- Kuruma Marthudunera young person,
24 years old
The premise of the National Framework for Protecting
Australia’s Children 2009 – 2020 is that redressing the
over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care requires an
increased focus on prevention and early intervention.
In the short-term, this would require a period of
“double-budgeting” where increased resources are
allocated to early intervention and prevention services
in addition to full funding of tertiary services, in
anticipation of long-term reduced demand in tertiary
services (ARACY, 2008, p. 47). However, the 2017-18 data
indicates that state and territory expenditure on family
support and intensive family support services remains,
as it has in the previous two financial years, at just
over 17% of overall real expenditure on child protection.
This is just under $1 billion compared to the over
Intensive family
support services
$475,387,064
8.1%
Other
$999,393,334
17.1% Family support
services
$524,006,270
9.0%
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 61
 FIGURE 18 Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia, 2011-18

Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia (2011-12 to 2017-18)

Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia (2011-12 to 2017-18)
Real recurrent expenditure for child protection in Australia, 2011-18
70%
70%

59.
59.5%
5%
60% 58. 58.
2%2% 58.5%
58. 5%
60%
56. 3%
56. 3%
54. 4% 54. 4%
52. 7% 52. 7% 53. 4% 53. 4%

50% 50%
Percentage of real recurrent expenditure

Percentage of real recurrent expenditure

Percentage of real recurrent expenditure

40%
40%

29. 6%
30% 28. 1% 29. 6% 28. 5%
28. 5% 27. 1%
30% 28. 1%
27. 1% 24. 6% 24. 4%
23. 1%
24. 6% 24. 4%
23. 1%
20%
20%

10. 0% 9. 5% 9. 6% 9. 1% 9. 1% 9. 0%
10% 8. 4%
10. 0% 9. 5% 9. 6% 9. 1% 9. 1% 9. 0%
10% 9. 2% 8. 4%
7. 5% 7. 5% 8. 1% 8. 1% 8. 2% 8. 1%
9. 2%
7. 5% 7. 5% 8. 1% 8. 1% 8. 2% 8. 1%
0%
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0%
2011-12 Protective intervention
2012-13 services 2013-14 2014-15
Year
Out-of-home care services Intensive2015-16
family support services 2016-17 Family support2017-18
services

Protective intervention services Out-of-home care services Intensive family support services Family support services
Source: Table 16A.6 (SCRGSP, 2018)
Source: Table 16A.6 (SCRGSP, 2018)

Source: Table 16A.6 (SCRGSP, 2018)

$4.8 billion, or 83% of funds spent on protective Figure 18 shows the percentage changes over the
intervention and out-of-home care services (Figure seven-year period. Protective intervention services
17) (SCRGSP, 2019). At only 9% and 8% of the overall refer to “the functions of governments that receive and
budget, respectively, governments are not only under- assess allegations of abuse … and intervene to protect
investing in intensive family support and family support children” (SCRGSP, 2019, p. 16.39). The increase in
services, but also not shifting the balance despite proportionate investment in these services in 2017-18
rhetoric about the value of prevention and early is still indicative of a child protection system that
intervention. To reduce unnecessary state intervention is overly crises oriented and reliant on statutory
in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family life, intervention (Fox et al., 2015). While the relative
expenditure must be re-balanced from statutory child percentage changes appear small, the changes
protection intervention (i.e. tertiary level and court- amount to millions of dollars, with funding for
ordered) to early intervention family support services out-of-home care rising from $3.1 billion in 2016-17 to
(i.e. voluntary and secondary level) (COAG, 2009). $3.4 billion in 2017-18. This indicates that investment
in early intervention and prevention services has not
Examining the change over time in expenditure
kept pace with the increased level of investment in
categories provides an indication of whether, and
tertiary services, predominantly out-of-home care.
the extent to which, expenditure is being shifted
Western Australia reports a very significantly lower
from tertiary to secondary and preventive services.
proportional investment in intensive family support and
Of particular interest is the investment in services for
family support than any other state or territory, investing
children and families to receive support to prevent
only 4.8% of its total child protection spending (Table 1).
statutory child protection intervention or to support
As indicated in Figure 19 this also equates to by far the
early reunification of children with family, compared
lowest expenditure per capita of the child population on
with the investment in statutory intervention services
family support in the state with the second highest over-
including out-of-home care. Relative investment
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
in these support services continues to decrease,
children in out-of-home care. Victoria has the highest
albeit slightly. Funding for out-of-home care services
proportional investment in intensive family support and
decreased to 58.5% in 2017-18 from 59.5% in 2016-
support services among jurisdictions at 27.1% of its
17, while funding for protective intervention services
total child protection investment (Table 1).
increased from 23.1% to 24.4% over the same period.

62 FAMILY MATTERS
Table 1 Real recurrent expenditure for child protection services – protective intervention services (PIS), out-of-home
care (OOHC), intensive family support services (IFSS), and family support services (FSS) by state and territory
governments, 2017-18

PIS OOHC IFSS FSS TOTAL

JURISDICTION
Unit $’000 % Unit $’000 % Unit $’000 % Unit $’000 %
NSW 540619 26.6 1201499 59.1 176413 8.7 114423 5.6 2 032 954
VIC 296636.6 22.9 646050 50.0 137363 10.6 212765.2 16.5 1 292 815
QLD 286983.6 26.8 607861.1 56.8 97466 9.1 77656.7 7.3 1 069 968
WA 193592 39.1 277539 56.1 11065 2.2 12632 2.6 494 828
SA 44121 8.0 425016 76.6 34435 6.2 51040 9.2 554 612
TAS 23150 20.6 74335 66.3 8073 7.2 6629 5.9 112 187
ACT 13602.0 20.9 42659.8 65.7 5693 8.8 2991.3 4.6 64 946
NT 24675 11.6 137389 64.6 4879 2.3 45869 21.6 212 812
AUSTRALIA 1423379.3 24.4 3412348.9 58.5 475387 8.1 524006.2 9.0 5835121

Source: Table 16A.7 (SCRGSP, 2019)

While these figures provide an overall picture of child children. Data was received from all states and
protection expenditure, the limited data available on territories except Tasmania and New South Wales.
investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Victoria provided data about Aboriginal and Torres
agencies, as discussed further in Part 3, demonstrates
Strait Islander families’ commencement of particular
that investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait
intensive and non-intensive family support programs
Islander community-controlled organisations is
in 2017-18. In total, 3836 children attended an intensive
vastly disproportionate to the level of engagement of
family support service, of which 735 (19.1%) were
our families in child protection. Research has found
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. A breakdown by
that quality interventions by Aboriginal and Torres
program type is available on the Family Matters website.
Strait Islander community-controlled intensive family
2578 (9.5%) of the 27,217 children commencing a
support services address access barriers for families
non-intensive family support service were Aboriginal
by providing culturally strong casework supports and
and Torres Strait Islander.
assisting them to access and navigate the broader
service system (Tilbury, 2015). It is critical that all Western Australia provided data about the number
Australian governments support the vital role of of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community- commencing a tertiary family preservation/reunification
controlled organisations in leading the design and service. Of the 670 children who had started a service,
delivery of holistic child and family services. 218 (33%) were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.
This is a significant drop in commencement from 2016-
Table 1 shows the breakdown of expenditure in child
17, where 45.6% of children who had commenced an
protection for 2017-18 by states and territories.
intensive family support service were Aboriginal and/or
Torres Strait Islander.
d) Family support services
South Australia provided data on the number of
While quality data are not available on access to and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
utilisation of all family support services, data are
commencing intensive family support services,
published about commencement of intensive family
including targeted intervention services and family
support. Intensive family support models provide time-
preservation and reunification services in 2017-18.
limited, in-home, intensive casework supports aimed at
Of the total 505 children who commenced targeted
addressing the complex needs of families experiencing
intervention services, 155 (31%) were Aboriginal and
vulnerabilities (SCRGSP, 2019, p. 16.37). Some of these
Torres Strait Islander children. A total of 384 children
are operated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
commenced family preservation and reunification
community-controlled organisations and they have
services in 2017-18 and 158 (41%) of those children
been found to bridge known barriers to service delivery
were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Data were
by providing culturally strong casework supports and
not available about children accessing non-intensive
assisting families to access and navigate the broader
family support services. A comparison with data
service system (Tilbury, 2015).
provided for 2016-17 – targeted intervention services
States and territories were asked to provide data on (39%) and family preservation and reunification services
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s access (49%) – suggests that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
to both non-intensive and intensive family supports Islander children were less likely to commence an
services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander intensive family support service this year.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 63

 The Australian Capital Territory provided the most
comprehensive data, including commencement for both
intensive and non-intensive family support services
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in
2017-18. Of the 297 children who commenced an
intensive family support service in 2017-18, 80 (26.9%)
were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Of the 1517 children whose Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander status was recorded commencing a
non-intensive family support service, 247 (16.3%) were
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. There were an
additional 225 children who commenced a non-intensive
service whose status was unknown.
In the Northern Territory, 457 (73%) of children
commencing intensive family support services in 2017-
18 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Thirty-five (5%) of children were of unknown Indigenous
status. In 2016-17, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children represented 80% of those commencing an
intensive family support service. Data were not provided
about children commencing non-intensive family
support services.
Queensland provided data on children supported by the
state’s intensive family support services. In an effort to
best approximate the number of families receiving an
‘intensive’ service, Queensland added to these data a
portion of children supported by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Family Wellbeing Services who were
referred from the Department of Child Safety, Youth and
Women (except statutory clients), and an estimated 50%
referred from other sources. In Queensland, 2801 (40%)
of children commencing an intensive family support
service were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Data
were not provided about children commencing non-
intensive family support services.
Tasmania did not provide data related to
commencement in intensive or non-intensive family
support services. Similar to last year, Tasmania
provided the following statement about making data
available about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children’s commencement during 2017-18 of intensive
family support services: “Data is not available, as data
published in the Report on Government Services is not
disaggregated by Indigenous status.”
Figure 20 shows that in 2017-18 Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children were on average 6.4 times more
likely to commence an intensive family support service
than non-Indigenous children, noting that data were
unavailable for Tasmania, an increase from 2016-17
where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
were 4.6 times as likely to commence a service. The
rate ratios ranged from 5.8 times more likely for an
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child to commence
intensive family support than a non-Indigenous child in
Victoria, to over 13.1 times more likely in the Australian
Capital Territory.
64 FAMILY MATTERS
Although this type of over-representation can be
seen as encouraging (i.e. Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children are more likely than their non-
Indigenous counterparts to receive needed services),
the data should be approached with some caution.
Broadly speaking, the referral pathways for intensive
family support prioritise families who have been
screened in for investigation of a risk of harm report
(Australian Centre for Child Protection, 2017). Although
these services are considered voluntary, there is much
discussion about the extent to which families have free
choice to participate. The potential consequences for
families who choose not to engage with services include
more intrusive interventions by the statutory agency,
and removal of children into out-of-home care
(SNAICC, 2015).
Interpretation of the Integrated Family Support Service
(IFSS) commencement data is further complicated by a
lack of data on families’ participation in other services
that seek to divert families from child protection
intervention. Non-intensive supports, and general family
support services that are not restricted to referrals from
child protection services, are also vitally important to
earlier intervention to support family functioning.
These services are often tailored to address a broad
range of family issues with varying complexity, and
accept referrals from the community, meaning families
are more likely to receive support voluntarily before
being subject to statutory intervention. Unfortunately,
data are unavailable to assess whether families are
accessing other family supports.
Furthermore, the level of service access does not
necessarily match the level of need and is yet to
demonstrate a significant impact on rates of over-
representation in out-of-home care. Despite over-
representation in intensive family support, just under
3% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
commenced an intensive family support service in
2017-18 across the five states and territories where
data were available (Figure 20). Figure 19 also shows
the level of expenditure per child by each state and
territory on intensive family support. This provides
another caution, showing, for example, that in Victoria,
investment is high yet the rate ratio for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children is low. As noted
above, Western Australia continues to invest by far the
least per capita in intensive family support, while also
investing comparatively little in other family support
services as indicated in Table 1.
FIGURE 19 Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children commencing
IFSS and IFSS expenditure per child (general population), by jurisdiction, 2017-18

Rate ratios comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children commencing
IFSS and IFSS expenditure per child (general population), by jurisdiction, 2017-18

Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist

Real expenditure per child

homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
Rate Ratio

25.0

20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7

15.3
15.0
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
10.0
10.2 10.3 10.4
9.1 9.2 9.5
8.7
6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3
5.0 6.2 6.6 6.7

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous Expenditure per child (All children)
0.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Financial year
Note: IFSS refers to Intensive Family Support Services
a. Data of Indigenous children commencing IFSS unavailable for Tas in 2018
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional
b. Australian rate ratio excludes Tas
c. Rate ratios calculated using number of children commencing IFSS and child population
Indigenous: by state
remote/very remote Non-Indigenous
Source: Table S64, AIHW 2019; Table 16.A32, SCRGSP, 2019
Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)

FIGURE 20 Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children commencing IFSS in Australia with the
exception of Tas and NT, 2015-18

Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children commencing IFSS

in Australia with the exception of Tas and NT, 2015-18
Percentage of Indigenous children commencing IFSS in Australia (2016-2018)
3%

2.89%

2.57%

2.33%
Percentage of Indingeous children

2% 2.14%
Percent

1%

0%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Year

a. Excluding data for Tas & NT

a. Excluding data for Tas & NT
b. Percentage
b. Percentage of Indigenous
of Indigenous children
children calculated
calculated usingusing number
number of children
of children commencing
commencing IFSS IFSS and child
and child population
population by state
by state
Source:
Source: Table
Table S64,S64,
AIHW AIHW
2019;2019;
TableTable 16.A32,
16.A32, SCRGSP,
SCRGSP, 2019 2019

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 65


DATA GAPS
ACCESS TO FAMILY INTENSIVE FAMILY SUPPORT
SERVICES
Available data reported nationally is limited
to commencement of intensive family support
services, by Indigenous status, in only some states
and territories. This data does not capture rates of
completion, length of participation, or measures
such as whether a family’s supports needs were
fully met or were subject to a renotification
following completion of the service.
Recommendation: Collection and publication of
national data capturing insight into participation
in intensive family support services following
commencement of a service.
ACCESS TO NON-INTENSIVE FAMILY SUPPORTS
The gaps in understanding access to non-intensive
family support services are compounded by
challenges to agree on definitions of what a family
support service is, and being able to compare
different types and levels of support provided by
different services within and between states and
territories. Only the Australian Capital Territory
and Victoria provided data on access to a broader
suite of family support services for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children (i.e. beyond intensive
family support) on request for this year’s report.
Recommendation: Collection and publication
of national data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander commencement of non-intensive general
family support services by program type.
EVALUATION
There is a lack of thorough evaluation of early
intervention programs for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and families, which limits
the capacity to confirm the extent of and reasons
for effectiveness. This includes limited evaluation
of effective culturally safe family support services.
Improved data on the impact of early intervention
services that keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children out of out-of-home care is
critical to informing future policy and program
development and implementation.
Recommendation: Prioritisation of culturally
appropriate evaluations of early intervention
programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children and families.
e) Family violence
The social, cultural, spiritual, physical and economic
impact that family violence has on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander families is devastating and is
widely described as a national crisis. As described in
Strong Families, Safe Kids: Family Violence Response
66 FAMILY MATTERS
and Prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Children and Families, family violence is a significant
reason for contact with child protection services
(SNAICC, National Family Violence Prevention Legal
Services [NFVPLS] & National Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Legal Services [NATSILS], 2017).
Although overall rates of family violence are high, family
violence does not impact all communities equally. Some
communities may have high levels of family violence
and others may have very little. It is similarly important
to recognise that family violence is understood to be
significantly under-reported (Willis, 2011).
The trauma of colonisation and oppression is directly
linked to the complexity and prevalence of family
violence that exists today. In some circumstances,
family violence can occur across generations, part of an
intergenerational cycle. An Australian study found that,
among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families,
a history of removal from families during childhood
was a potential risk factor for mothers experiencing
family violence as an adult (Cripps, Bennett, Gurrin &
Studdert, 2009).
Due to under-reporting of family violence it is not
possible to establish the prevalence of family violence,
sexual assault, and other types of violence (Phillips
& Vandenbroek, 2014). However, available research
indicates that family violence occurs at higher rates for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for
non-Indigenous people. In 2015, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander women were significantly more likely
to be the victim of assault compared to other Australian
women: 4.9 times in New South Wales, 9.1 times
in South Australia, and 11.4 times in the Northern
Territory. In 2015, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
women were 32 times more likely to be hospitalised as
a result of injuries caused by family violence and twice
as likely to be killed by a current or former partner
(AIHW, 2018). Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
women do not report for reasons including: fear of
reprisals or of having children taken away; lack of
confidence in police or community support; language
and cultural barriers; and lack of awareness of support
services (Willis, 2011). Limited availability of supports
for victims/survivors (predominately mothers) to safely
maintain the care of their children can lead to the forced
separation of children from victims/survivors to ensure
their safety from violent parents/carers (SNAICC et al.,
2017).
Despite the higher rates, family violence is not
inherently part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
cultures. Indeed, evidence suggests that culture is a
central and key protective factor that supports family
to be free of violence, and community-led strategies
can ensure culturally safe and adapted responses that
address intergenerational trauma and the complexities
underlying violence in each community (SNAICC et al.,
2017; The Healing Foundation & White Ribbon Australia,
2017).
IMPACT OF DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
CHILDREN
Research has suggested that Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children are at greater risk of being
exposed to family violence than other children (Cripps,
Bennett, Gurrin & Studdert, 2009; Mouzos & Makkai,
2004). Two thirds of victims of physical or threatened
violence share the household with children, and in
one third of cases the children are under the age of
five (AIHW, 2006). A Victorian report found that 88%
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in
out-of-home care had experienced family violence
(Commission for Children and Young People, 2016).
Children’s exposure to family violence has been
recognised as harmful and classified as child abuse
for over two decades (Tomison, 2000). The harm can
be complex and profound and can include: witnessing
violence (Goddard & Bedi, 2010); being used or blamed
for the violence; and being involved in trying to stop the
violence (Humphreys, 2007). Research has shown that
the greater the risk of violence perpetrated against
mothers, the more likely violence will be directed at
the children and the more likely there will be lack of
supervision and neglect (Hartley, 2004). Furthermore,
children who witness family violence as children are, in
turn, more likely to perpetrate or be a victim of violence
in adulthood (AIHW, 2018d). Family violence is a major
issue driving involvement with the child protection
system in Australia. In 2017-18, emotional abuse, which
includes exposure to family violence, was the most
common type of substantiated harm for all children
(AIHW, 2019d).
DATA GAPS
INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF DOMESTIC
AND FAMILY VIOLENCE REPORTED TO CHILD
PROTECTION
There is a lack of data on the number and rate of
child protection reports and/or substantiations that
relate to family violence by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander status. This information would
provide a more comprehensive understanding of
the intersection of domestic and family violence
and the child protection system.
Recommendation: Publication of data describing
the rate of child protection reports and
substantiations related to family violence
across all jurisdictions and by remoteness for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
f) Drug and alcohol
Research demonstrates that parental substance misuse
is one of the most significant risk factors for child abuse
and neglect (Australian Institute of Family Studies,
2017). Although data are collected about parental
substance use identified as contributing to neglect
and abuse by some jurisdictions, data are not routinely
collected or published, either as the primary factor
or as co-occurring with domestic and family violence
and/or parental mental illness (Frederico, Jackson, &
Dwyer, 2014). Parental use of alcohol and illicit drugs
can adversely impact capacity for parenting, while
affected by the substance/s, when withdrawing from
addictive drugs, and/or because of criminal behaviours
associated with substance misuse (Child Welfare
Information Gateway, 2014). Ways in which parenting is
affected include: neglect due to impaired functioning,
insufficient money for food, and inconsistent parenting
(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2010). Risks to
children include the lack of supervision, and physical
or emotional abuse.
Substance misuse can also present significant risks to
children through conditions developed in utero, such as
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). Research has
highlighted the limited availability and development of
effective FASD interventions, especially for infants and
young children, alongside the potential of supports that
take a broader ecological approach by recognising the
impacts of FASD across multiple domains of functioning
(Reid et al., 2015). The lack of identification, diagnosis
and provision of family support specific to FASD is
being increasingly recognised as a major driver of
child protection intervention and placement breakdown
due to parents and carers not being equipped with the
knowledge and strategies to cope with and manage
children’s behaviours (Williams, 2017).
It is important to note that parental substance misuse
does not present a risk to a child’s safety and wellbeing
in all cases. Many parents with alcohol and drug issues
recognise the possible impacts upon their children
and make arrangements to ensure their safety.
Nevertheless, for many families, exposure to parental
alcohol and substance misuse has been identified as
one of the primary reasons for which Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children come to the attention
of statutory child protection (Commission for Children
and Young People, 2016; O’ Donnell et al., 2010). Lack of
access to treatment and rehabilitation services means
the underlying causes that lead to concerns about
children cannot be addressed.
Use of alcohol and other drug treatment services is
therefore relevant to parental health and wellbeing,
and addressing risk factors to children. Figure
21 demonstrates a steady increase in the over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in use of treatment services. In 2017-18,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were
7.2 times as likely to access treatment, up from 6.5
in 2016-17. The drugs leading to treatment – alcohol,
amphetamines, cannabis, heroin and volatile solvents
– were similar for Indigenous and non-Indigenous
clients with the exception of volatile solvents (AIHW,
2019). Treatment is provided for own drug use and
for someone else’s drug use. The available data does
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 67
 not detail the quality and effectiveness of available
services, nor the prevention and treatment strategies
that work best for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people (Snijder & Kershaw, 2019). Furthermore, there
is a lack of information in available data on how and
whether services, seek to address safety for children.
More broadly, there is also a lack of research evidence
describing the extent of child-focused practice in
alcohol and other drug treatment services (National
Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, 2014).
g) Mental health
There is now a significant body of literature
documenting the factors influencing the social
and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities, including structural
disadvantages experienced across the social
determinants of health, including education,
employment, discrimination and racism (Calma,
Dudgeon, & Bray, 2017). Mental health is one
component of an individual’s social and emotional
wellbeing, which encompasses the “social, emotional
spiritual and cultural wellbeing” of an individual and
includes their connection to land, culture, spirituality,
family and community (Australian Indigenous
HealthInfoNet, 2019, para. 1).
As with parental use of alcohol and other drugs,
parental mental illness can adversely affect a parent’s
daily functioning and quality of life, and therefore
impact on the quality and consistency of care provided
to children. Risks to children include: that physical
or emotional needs may not be met, children may be
neglected, or children assume a caring role for their
unwell parent. Social isolation is a compounding factor
(Bromfield, Lamont, Parker & Horsfall, 2010). The
presence of mental illness alone does not impact upon
a parent’s capacity to care for their child. Research
demonstrates that with appropriate management and
supports, negative impacts on children are reduced
(Reupert & Maybery, 2007).
There is a lack of current data on the prevalence of
mental illness among Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities. There has been no national
survey on the prevalence of mental illness in Australia
among adults since the 2007 National Survey of
Mental Health and Wellbeing, and the results of that
survey were not disaggregated by Indigenous status.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) uses the
Kessler 10 (K10) psychological distress scale as a
means of assessing mental health and wellbeing of the
population. There is a strong association between high
scores on the K10 and diagnosis of affective and anxiety
disorders, and a lesser but still significant association
between the K10 and other categories of mental
illness (Andrews & Slade, 2001). Evidence indicates
that psychological distress among Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people is linked to contemporary
experiences of racism and social exclusion in
Australian society, as well as the ongoing impacts of
68 FAMILY MATTERS
intergenerational trauma and colonisation (Paradies &
Cunningham, 2012).
The K10 has been included in National Health Surveys
(NHS) since 2010. Participants are asked questions
about negative emotional states, with different degrees
of severity, experienced in the four weeks prior to
interview. There is a five-level response scale for each
of the 10 questions, to reflect the amount of time that
the respondent experienced those particular feelings.
The ABS asserts that very high levels of distress may
indicate the need for professional help (ABS, 2012). In
the 2014-15 NHS, levels of psychological distress were
nationally 2.5 times higher for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people
(see Figure 22) (SCRGSP, 2018). Rate ratios varied
across states and territories, with the lowest at just over
two times and the highest in the Northern Territory with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at around
four times more likely to report high or very high levels
of psychological distress.
Governments invest in different types of mental health
services to support recovery. The Medical Benefit
Scheme/Veteran Affairs provides mental health
services through general practitioners, psychiatrists,
psychologists and other allied health professionals.
Public mental health services refer to state and territory
government specialised mental health services that
treat severe mental illness, including acute inpatient
psychiatric services and community-based services
that provide assessment, treatment, rehabilitation
and care (SCRGSP, 2019, 13.2). Figure 23 shows the
rate ratios for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
and non-Indigenous people receiving clinical mental
health services in 2008-09 to 2016-17. In 2016-17, as
in previous years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people were over three times as likely than the non-
Indigenous population to use state and territory
governments’ specialised public mental health services.
This was the case for people residing in regional,
remote and very remote areas, and in lower socio-
economic areas.
The over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in acute mental health services
suggests that individuals are accessing support in
times of crisis. It is important to note that most of these
services address the symptoms of mental health issues
and not the underlying structural and individual factors
that contribute to distress. Although rates of mental
health service access are higher for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people, it is not possible to assess
whether rates of access meet need (Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet [DPMC], 2017). Given the
well-documented evidence of individual and collective
trauma experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities and its impacts on social and
emotional wellbeing, it is unlikely that current services
are equipped to deliver the trauma aware, healing-
informed approaches that have been shown to promote
health and wellbeing (The Healing Foundation, 2019).
FIGURE 21 Rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous clients accessing alcohol
and other drug treatment services, 2014-18

Rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous clients accessing alcohol
Rate Ratios of Clients Accessing Alcohol
and other drug and Other
treatment Drug
services, Treatment Services
2014-18

8.0
1.2

7.0
1.2
1.0

6.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.2
5.0
Rate Ratio

1.0
Ratio
RateRatio

0.8
1.2
4.0 Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist
0.6
1.0 homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
Rate
Rate Ratio

0.8
1.2
3.0
0.6
1.0 25.0
0.4
Rate Ratio

0.8
1.2
2.0 20.1
0.6 20.0 18.1 17.7
1.0
0.4
Rate Ratio

0.8 15.3
0.2
1.2
1.0 15.0
0.6
Rate ratio

1.0
0.4 10.2
Rate Ratio

0.8 9.4
0.2 10.0
1.2
0.0 10.2 10.3
0.6 9.2 9.5
0.0
1.0 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
8.7 9.1 2017-18
0.4 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 6.9 7.1 7.4
Year
Rate Ratio

0.8 Year 5.0 6.2 6.6 6.7

0.2
0.6
0.0 Table SC.26 (AIHW, 2018c)
Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous
1.0
0.4 0.0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Rate Ratio

0.8 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

0.2
Source: Table SC.26 (AIHW, 2018c)
0.6 Financial year
0.0
0.4 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Indigenous: major cities2017-18 Indigenous: inner/outer regional
Rate Ratio

0.8
0.2 Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous
0.6
0.0
FIGURE 22 0.4 Rate ratios of
2014-15Aboriginal and Torres Strait
2015-16 Islander
Source: and
Specialist non-Indigenous
Homelessness
2016-17 Services Annual adults
Report, WEB with
99 high
(AIHW,
2017-18 or
2015), WEBvery high
162 (AIHW levels
2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)
Rate Ratio

0.2 of psychological distress, by jurisdiction, 2014-15

0.6
0.0
0.4 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0.2 Rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous adults with high
0.0 or very high levels of psychological distress, by jurisdiction, 2014-15
0.4 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0.2
4.5
0.0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0.2
4.0
0.0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
3.5
0.0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
3.0
Rate Ratio

2.5
Rate Ratio

Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessing specialist

homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
2.0

25.0
1.5
20.1
20.0 18.1 18.6
17.7
1.0
15.3
15.0
Rate ratio

0.5
10.2
9.4
10.0
10.2 10.3 10.4
0.0 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.5

NSW Vic Qld WA 5.0 SA 6.2 Tas 6.6 ACT 6.7 NT 6.9 Aust 7.1 7.4 7.3

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous

0.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Source: Table 13A.44 (SCRGSP, 2018b)
Financial year

Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional

Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2019b)
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 69
 There are also a number of serious concerns over
the appropriateness and cultural safety of mental
health services. Analyses conducted on behalf of the
Indigenous Health Performance Framework indicates
that 30% of respondents to the 2014-15 National Social
Survey reported that they had not accessed health care
when they needed to in the past 12 months. Of those
respondents, 32% reported reasons related to cultural
safety, including embarrassment and fear (22%) and
mistrust (9%) (DPMC, 2017, p. 164). Systemic racism
in health care settings is not only a major barrier
to accessing health care for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people, it is associated with quality of
care. Research demonstrates that racism can lead to
poorer self-reported health status, lower perceived
quality of care, failure to follow recommendations, and
interruptions of care (Australian Indigenous Doctors’
Association, 2017).

FIGURE 23 Rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people and non-Indigenous people receiving clinical mental
health services, 2008-17

Rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people and non-Indigenous people
receiving clinical mental health services, 2008-17
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
Rate Ratio
Rate Ratio

Rate ratios comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous accessin

homelessness services by remoteness in Australia
1.5

25.0

1.0
20.1
20.0 18.1

15.3
0.5 15.0
Rate ratio

10.2
9.4
10.0
0.0 10.2
9.1 9.2 9.5
8.7
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
5.0 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.1
Year 6.2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander - Public Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander - MBS and DVA Non-Indigenous
0.0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Financial year
Source: Table 13A.15 (SCRGSP, 2019b)
Indigenous: major cities Indigenous: inner/outer regional

Indigenous: remote/very remote Non-Indigenous

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, WEB 99 (AIHW, 2015), WEB 162 (AIHW 2016), HOU 299 (AIHW, 2

70 FAMILY MATTERS
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 71
72 FAMILY MATTERS
PART 3
PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND
RESPECT FOR CULTURE
Part 2 of the report primarily focused on the prevention
element of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Placement Principle (Child Placement Principle).
Part 3 focuses on state and territory governments’
respect for a child’s right to culture and the right
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to
participate in decision-making by examining compliance
with all five elements of the Child Placement Principle.
It includes discussion of the placement hierarchy,
practices around cultural planning for children in out-
of-home care, as well as the extent to which Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander families, children and
community representatives are enabled to participate in
decisions that affect children. It analyses the extent to
which governments across Australia enable Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander participation and partnership
in child protection decision-making at the individual and
systems levels through laws, policies and practice.
Part 3 relates to all four building blocks of the Family
Matters campaign:
• All families enjoy access to quality, culturally safe,
universal and targeted services necessary for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to
thrive.
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
organisations participate in and have control over
decisions that affect their children.
• Law, policy and practice in child and family welfare
are culturally safe and responsive.
• Governments and services are accountable to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
3.1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLACEMENT
ELEMENT OF THE CHILD PLACEMENT
PRINCIPLE
The Child Placement Principle is comprised of five
elements (prevention, placement, participation,
partnership and connection) and is designed to serve
as a framework for holistic, best practice response
for families in contact with child protection systems.
The principle is often narrowly interpreted as a
hierarchy of placement options for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care.
However, the aims of the principle are much broader,
incorporating principles focused on systemic change in
service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, families and communities (Arney, Lannos,
Chong, McDougall, & Parkinson, 2015; Tilbury, Burton,
Sydenham, Boss, & Louw, 2013).
In relation to the placement element, the Report on
Government Services (RoGS) reports on whether a child
is placed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
family or kin, other family or kin, other Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander carers, or in Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander residential care (SCRGSP,
2019). However, these data provide only a proxy
measure of compliance, as full compliance with the
placement element of the principle is not achieved
if active efforts are not undertaken to fully explore
a child’s family and community relationships, and
cultural connections to identify potential placements.
Application of the placement hierarchy requires child
protection decision-makers to exhaust all possible
options at one level of the hierarchy before considering
a lower-order placement (SNAICC, 2018). Where an
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child is placed
with non-Indigenous carers, it is vital that his or her
carer is supported to facilitate the child’s connection
to their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family,
community, culture and country. Planning should also
be undertaken to reconnect children to placements
with their family and kin if such a placement has not
been identified initially.
PLACEMENT WITH KIN
Figure 24 shows that the rate of placement of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children with family and kin
or other Indigenous carers has continued to drop from
74.8% in 2006 to 64.5% in 2018. Notably, Figure 24 also
shows that the rate of placement with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander carers (excluding non-Indigenous
family and kin) has dropped even more dramatically.
In one year alone, the rate of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in out-of-home care placed
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers
dropped significantly from 49.4% in June 2017 to
45% in June 2018.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 73
 FIGURE 24 Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with kin or other Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander carers, 2006-18

Indigenous children
Percentage placed with
of Aboriginal kin or
and Torres other
Strait Aboriginal
Islander andwith
children placed Torres
kin Strait
or other Aboriginal Islander
and Torres carers
Strait Islander carers, 2006-18
Kin or Indigenous carers Indigenous carers only
80

74.8 74.5
75 73.3
71.7
69.4
70 68.1 67.7 68.1 67.7
66.0 66.8 66.5
65.3 65.4
64.5
65 63.1
60.6
Percent
Percent

60
57.1
54.6
55 53.6 53.6
52.6
51.0 50.5
49.4
50

45.0
45

40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Year
Source: Table 15A.24 (SCRGSP, 2016), Table 16A.20 (SCRGSP,2018), Table 16A.21 (SCRGSP, 2019)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers only Kin or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers

Source: Table 15A.24 (SCRGSP, 2016), Table 16A.20 (SCRGSP,2018), Table 16A.21 (SCRGSP, 2019)

FIGURE 25 Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with kin or other Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander carers, by jurisdiction, 2013-18

Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with kin
Percentage ofAboriginal
or other Indigenous children
and Torres Strait placed
Islander with
carers,kin or other Aboriginal
by jurisdiction, 2013-18 and
Torres Strait Islander carer between 2013 and 2018
90.0

81.1
80.0 78.0
74.4

70.0 67.1 68.1

64.8 64.5
61.0 62.3
59.7 59.5 59.3
60.0
54.3 55.5
2013
50.0
Percent

2014
Percent

42.6 43.9
40.0 2015
40.0
2016
33.3
2017
30.0 2018

20.0

10.0

0.0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Australia

Source:
Source:Table
Table15A.24 (SCRGSP, 2016),
15A.24 (SCRGSP, 2016),Table
Table16A.20
16A.20 (SCRGSP,2018),
(SCRGSP,2018), Table
Table 16A.21
16A.21 (SCRGSP,
(SCRGSP, 2019)2019)

NOTE: Tasmania’s data in 2018 has issues with accuracy and has been excluded from this figure.

74 FAMILY MATTERS
These statistics highlight that Australia is pulling
back on its support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander kinship at a rate that is of grave concern.
These statistics are even more alarming when
considering concerns that have been identified with the
inappropriate definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander kinship. For example:
• The Northern Territory defines family as “anyone
who is closely associated with the child or another
family member of the child” (Care and Protection
of Children Act 2007 (NT), section 19).
• The legislation in the Australian Capital Territory
defines a kinship carer as a family member or a
significant person. A “significant person” is a non-
family member who the “child or young person,
a family member of the child or young person or
the director-general considers is significant in the
child’s or young person’s life” (Children and Young
People Act 2008 (ACT), sections 516 and 14).
The use of a broad interpretation of “kin” or “family”
means that in most if not all jurisdictions, some
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are being
raised by non-Indigenous, non-family members deemed
by the state to be, for example, part of their social
network or a person of significance to the child.
The result from such a placement can be the varying
degree of separation from family and culture, which
cannot rightly be deemed as compliant with the intent
of the Child Placement Principle. Wide statutory
definitions of “kin”, that do not truly reflect Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander kinship, may distort data
available on how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care are having their
cultural rights respected and cultural needs met.
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
KINSHIP MUST BE DEFINED BY A CHILD’S
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
Commonly, a wide definition of “kin” has
been adopted by statutory agencies to identify
placements for children “without meaningful
mapping, identification, support and enabling of
family members who have a legitimate cultural
connection to the child” (QATSICPP, 2018, p. 7).
SNAICC recognises that there is more than one
definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
kinship, but it is commonly defined as relating
to the biological bloodlines passed between
generations. It can also be culturally defined ties
that “determine how people relate to each other
and, their roles, responsibilities and obligations
in relation to one another…” (SNAICC, 2010).
What is important is that members of a child’s
own cultural and family groups are best placed to
define a child’s kinship connections. They are the
only ones who truly understand their own cultural
kinship ties.
There may be various factors that account for the
decline in the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care who are placed
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kin nationally.
Potential factors include: the inability of statutory
authorities to identify appropriate Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander kin to provide care; the failure
to resource Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled organisations (ACCOs) with
relevant cultural authority to support the identification
of kin; lack of supports provided to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander carers or potential carers; the
use of culturally inappropriate assessment tools to
assess potential and existing carers; and difficulties
in meeting the eligibility criteria (Bromfield, Higgins,
Higgins & Richardson, 2007). Research has highlighted
the strain on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
families and communities resulting from pressures of
additional care while also experiencing higher levels of
poverty and disadvantage (Kiraly & Humphreys, 2011).
This strain is compounded by lower levels of support
provided to kinship carers as opposed to foster carers.
Concerns have also been raised regarding potential
racism in decision-making leading to the preferencing
of non-Indigenous kin placements. These concerns
align with literature on the negative impacts of wrongly
assumed dysfunction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities that contribute to discriminatory
child protection intervention (Cuneen, 2015).
Figure 26 shows that Victoria is the only jurisdiction to
have an upward trend in the placement of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander carers between 2013-18, although
the rate was still unacceptably low in 2018 at 46.5%.
As highlighted throughout Part 3 of this report, Victoria
has consistently invested in a range of programs that
support the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander families and community-controlled agencies
in child protection processes, which may in part explain
increasing levels of placement with kinship carers.
In addition, this year we asked state and territory
governments to provide us with data on the rate of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children admitted
to care in 2017-18 who were placed with relatives/kin
or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers.
Only three jurisdictions provided this data, Queensland,
Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Victoria
reported that 73.2% (653) of children admitted to out-
of-home care in 2017-18, were placed with relatives/kin
or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers.
These encouraging numbers in Victoria demonstrate
that a number of Aboriginal organisations undertake
family finding in the state, emphasising that Aboriginal
organisations are best placed to carry out this work.
In Queensland, 38.9% (366) of children admitted to out-
of-home care in 2017-18, were placed with relatives/kin
or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers.
The Australian Capital Territory reported that 50% (25)
of children admitted to out-of-home care in 2017-18
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 75
 had at least one of their placements with relatives/kin In the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)
or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers. and Report on Government Services, placement
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in
CASE STUDY residential care settings that are targeted to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children, irrespective of
VICTORIA’S NEW KINSHIP CARE whether they are Indigenous-run services, is counted
as compliant with the Child Placement Principle. As the
MODEL lowest, “last resort” option in the placement hierarchy,
The Victorian Government’s new kinship care a child living in residential care should not be counted
model commenced in March 2018. It demonstrates as a compliant placement and as such, “Indigenous
a strong commitment to prioritising the role of residential care” placements have been excluded from
Aboriginal community-controlled organisations the data in figures 24, 25 and 26.
(ACCOs) in developing processes for culturally safe
kinship carer assessment and support. The model In addition, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
includes a First Supports Program that is delivered children on third party parental responsibility orders
by ACCOs and is aimed at supporting kinship are excluded from the data reporting the relationship
placements. Participating ACCOs: between the child and their carer in Victoria, New South
Wales and Western Australia. As such, it is unknown
• provide up to 110 hours of family services to
whether these children are placed in connection with
kinship families
their family and culture. The issue of children on
• complete an assessment of the kinship permanent care orders being excluded from the out-of-
placement within six weeks of commencement home care count and the impact this has is explored in
• provide flexible brokerage to support in the Part 1 of this report.
establishment of a placement
• refer families and children to other services
and supports as needed.
As part of the model, the Victorian government has
selected the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
(VACCA) in partnership with the First Nations Legal
and Research Services and the Koorie Heritage
Trust to deliver the Aboriginal Kinship Finding
Service. The service includes the establishment
of a genealogical database to support early kinship
carer identification, thus increasing opportunities
for identifying placements that are compliant with
the placement hierarchy.
Source: Victorian Department of Health and Human Services

76 FAMILY MATTERS
FIGURE 26 Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander carers, by jurisdiction, 2013-18

Percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers,
Percentage of Indigenous children placed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
by jurisdiction, 2013-18
Islander carer between 2013 and 2018
70.0
65.4

60.0

53.6 53.6
52.5

48.1 49.3
50.0
46.5 46.9
43.9 45.0

40.8 40.6 41.0 41.2

40.0 2013
36.9
2014
Percent
Percent

33.3
2015
30.0 2016
2017
2018
20.0 18.8
15.0

10.0

–
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust

Source: Table
Source: 15A.24
Table (SCRGSP,
15A.24 (SCRGSP,2016),
2016),Table
Table 16A.20 (SCRGSP,2018),Table
16A.20 (SCRGSP,2018), Table 16A.21
16A.21 (SCRGSP,
(SCRGSP, 2019)
2019)

NOTE: Tasmania’s data in 2018 has issues with accuracy and has been excluded from this figure.

RECONNECTION South Australia reported that 107 Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander children who had been living in a non-
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
relative/kinship care placement moved to a relative/
removed and placed in out-of-home care outside
kinship care placement during the 2017-18 reporting
of their families and communities, maintaining and
period. The Australian Capital Territory reported
developing connections to their families, communities
that during 2017-18, 25 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
and cultures is essential to their safety and wellbeing
Islander children who had been living in a non-relative/
(Dockery, 2010). These connections are critical for
kinship care placement moved to a relative/kinship
social and emotional development, identity formation,
care placement. Victoria reported that 191 Aboriginal
and physical safety (Lohoar, Butera, & Kennedy, 2014).
and Torres Strait Islander children who had been living
Where family and community placements cannot be
in a non-relative/kinship care placement moved to a
immediately identified, active efforts to identify safe
relative/kinship care placement during 2017-18.
and appropriate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
relative and kinship care placements are essential. Queensland did not provide data on reconnection but
indicated that they are in the process of developing
States and territories were asked to provide data related
this data.
to their efforts to find placement options for children at
a higher level of the placement hierarchy – often termed
“reconnection”. These data capture the reconnection
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-
of-home care who moved from a non-relative/kinship
placement to live with a relative/kinship carer.
South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory
and Victoria provided relevant data.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 77

 DATA GAPS
PLACEMENT WITH ABORIGINAL AND TORRES
STRAIT ISLANDER FAMILY, KIN AND OTHER
CARERS
Currently, there is limited data available on whether
the placement hierarchy has been considered in
placement decisions (CCYP, 2015) and whether active
efforts are being undertaken to ensure Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children’s needs and
rights of connection are being met in placement
decision-making (SNAICC, 2017).
Further, placement type data should be reported
with reference to entry cohorts, rather than at a
point-in-time, in order to monitor trends over time.
Reporting the total number of children in out-of-
home care distorts the true picture, since many
children have been in out-of-home care for a very
long time. Current practices need to be determined
with reference to current (annualised) data.
DATA GAPS
RECONNECTION
While the safe reunification of children with their
parents is the primary goal for children coming
into out-of-home care, for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children who cannot be reunified
and who are placed away from their kin and
communities, reconnecting them in a timely way
is vitally important to supporting and maintaining
their cultural and family ties. Reconnection is
the movement of children in out-of-home care
from a placement outside of their family and kin
to a placement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander relatives or kin where it is safe and in
the child’s best interest to do so. Currently there
is no national data available on reconnection.
Recommendation: National development and
reporting of data on children’s reconnection to their
families, communities and cultures through safe
and timely movement to higher-order placements
in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle hierarchy.
78 FAMILY MATTERS
Recommendations:
• National development and reporting of data
around the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in out-of-home care
with completed genograms/family maps; for
whom there was consultation with an ACCO in
the determination of placement; and for whom
there was a family group conference or family-led
decision-making meeting regarding placement
decisions.
• Exclusion of residential care from data reporting
on proxy compliance with the placement hierarchy
to recognise that residential care placements
do not reflect placement at a high level of the
placement hierarchy.
• National development and reporting of annualised
entry cohort data by placement type for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home
care to determine current practice and trends in
placement with family, kin and other Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander carers.
3.2 CULTURAL PLANNING – COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONNECTION ELEMENT OF
THE CHILD PLACEMENT PRINCIPLE
Maintaining connections to family, community, culture,
and Country are vital for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children in out-of-home care. A child’s
right to connection is also enshrined in international
human rights documents such as the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia
has committed to upholding.
As a Yorta Yorta woman who spent her earlier
years growing up on Country and in community,
I felt something was missing when I moved away
at the age of 12 … It was my connection to my
community and my feet not being grounded on
my Country…
I yearned for the years of growing up with my
family, friends and community around me.
Working with our kids who are not only removed
from our families but our community, ignites
this fire and passion to make sure that all our
kids come back to their Country. – Yorta Yorta
young woman who works at Njernda Aboriginal
Corporation
The development and implementation of cultural plans
(also known as cultural support plans or cultural care
plans in some jurisdictions) offer a way to support these
connections. Important aspects of cultural planning
include the mapping of cultural connections through
accurate genealogies, and practical supports and
resourcing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children to connect with and participate in the cultural
life of their families and communities (Libesman, 2011).
Requirements or recommendations commonly exist
for cultural planning across child protection systems.
However, these connections are hindered if plans are
not completed, there is a lack of practical supports
and resourcing for their implementation, and there is
inadequate monitoring of implementation (Libesman,
2011; SNAICC, 2013).
The completion or existence of cultural plans for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in care is
an indicator reported under the National Framework
for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-20 (National
Framework) and the National Standards for Out-of-
Home Care. In 2018, 72.5% of all Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in out-of-home care, who were
required to have a cultural plan, were reported as
having such a plan (AIHW, 2019). However, this data is
limited for a number of reasons. First, the data excludes
New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania.
Second, they are restricted to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children who are required by legislation
to have a cultural plan, excluding, for example, children
on permanent care orders. Third, the data are restricted
to the completion of cultural plans and do not indicate
the quality of a plan or its implementation. Finally,
because there has been a lack of consistency in data
provided by states and territories since the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare began reporting on this
indicator in 2014, it is not possible to compare data
across the last five years.
Further, a CREATE Foundation survey released in
December 2018 of young people with an out-of-home
care experience indicated that one third of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander young people surveyed felt
little connection to their culture (CREATE Foundation,
2018). Only 18% of those children surveyed were aware
of having a cultural support plan (CREATE Foundation,
2018).
My mob comes from Perth and are Noonyar
Aboriginals. I think my Nanna comes from
somewhere else but I’m not sure. Some ideas
I think would be good to help young Aboriginal
people would be things like Clontarf. More
Aboriginal sports teams, youth workers who
are Aboriginal at school and youth groups
where kids can do activities. I used to do Ignite
(Save the Children) but there’s some problems
with family so I don’t go there anymore. Camps
would be good too and we could learn about
traditional Aboriginal things. Clontarf went to
Kalgoorlie but I didn’t go. Also learning more
language would be good and art. – Noonyar young
person, Perth, 14 years old
Family Matters has consistently called for the
development of meaningful ways to measure the
development, quality and implementation of cultural
plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
in out-of-home care (The Family Matters Report 2017;
The Family Matters Report 2018). The Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Working Group under the
National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children
2009-20 has proposed that given the many and
persistent challenges in developing consistent national
administrative data that reflects the quality of cultural
support planning, a nationally consistent audit process
should be adopted. The audit proposes to measure
whether cultural plans include: input of children, family
members and ACCOs; the child’s cultural background,
including clan and/or language group and a family
genogram; and specific and detailed actions for the
maintenance of a child’s culture.
In addition to ongoing efforts on progressing data
collection, there are some promising initiatives across
Australia to support quality cultural planning. For
example, the Victorian model for cultural planning
that commenced in 2016-17 is contributing to
practice development. As part of this model, senior
cultural planning advisors within ACCOs support the
development of cultural plans and chief executive
officers of ACCOs must endorse the plans before
they are implemented. Further, a Cultural Planning
Implementation Group has been established to oversee
the implementation of cultural plans, providing a
significant focus on ensuring that plans are followed
through. The statewide coordinator for Aboriginal
cultural planning is also responsible for leading forums
on cultural planning to support the sharing of best
practice.
In New South Wales, the Aboriginal Case Management
Policy and accompanying Rules and Practice Guidance
was recently adopted by the NSW Government. Its
development was led by AbSec – NSW Child, Family and
Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation, the state’s
peak body for Aboriginal children, and it provides for
oversight on the implementation of cultural plans.
However, community-controlled organisations have
underscored that there has been little progress to
action these provisions in practice.
A number of children and young people, aged
between 5 and 14, said they need the following
things to feel connected:
• family
• land and sea
• Elders
• friends
• school/education
• opportunities
• internet
• phone
- children and young people aged 5-14,
Kabi Kabi mob, Queensland
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 79

DATA GAPS
MEANINGFUL CULTURAL SUPPORT
MEASURES
Current national data on cultural support planning
has extensive limitations. Deficiencies in cultural
support planning completion and quality have
been raised in numerous reviews and inquiries
into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
in out-of-home care (Baidawi et al., 2016; CCYP,
2015). Significant new data development is required
to capture a broader range of indicators relating to
the process for creation and content of plans.
Recommendation: Adoption of more meaningful
measures of the development, quality and
implementation of cultural plans for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care,
and measurement through a nationally consistent
audit of cultural plans.
3.3 LEGISLATED AND RESOURCED
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER PARTICIPATION-
COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PARTICIPATION AND PARTNERSHIP
ELEMENTS OF THE CHILD
PLACEMENT PRINCIPLE
Participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in decisions that affect them is a core human
right (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, 2007) and recognised as critical
to decision-making that is informed of and takes
account of the best interests of children, from a cultural
perspective (Committee on the Rights of the Child,
2009a). Participation of children in all matters affecting
them is also a right enshrined in the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. Recognising these rights,
Building Block 3 of the Family Matters campaign
states that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
and organisations must be able to participate in and
have control over decisions that affect their children.
Participation must extend beyond consultation to
genuinely include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, families and community representatives in the
decisions that are made about children at all stages of
child protection decision-making.
This section of the report examines legislative
alignment with representative, and child and family
participation; government investment in family-led
decision-making and related models; structures for
representative participation; the extent to which ACCOs
participate in policy development, service design and
systems oversight; and government investment in
service delivery by ACCOs.
80 FAMILY MATTERS
a) Legislative alignment with participation
There must be enabling legislation to support and
create accountability for meaningful participation in
practice. The table below reviews the alignment of
each state and territory’s child protection legislation
with elements of a human rights based framework
for participation in child protection decision-making
(SNAICC, 2013).
There have been no changes to legislation across
Australia in relation to the five criteria that the
legislation was reviewed against in The Family Matters
Report 2018 (see the first five criteria identified in
Table 2).
This year, we have included one additional criteria that
child protection legislation will be reviewed against.
The Act mandates that a child has meaningful
opportunities to express his or her views and for
those views to be given due weight throughout the
decision-making process. Model legislation should
ensure, according to the United Nations Committee
on the Rights of the Child, that the “child’s views are
solicited and considered including decisions regarding
placement in foster care or homes, development of
care plans and their review, and visits with parents and
family” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009b,
p. 13).
As the table below indicates, a number of state and
territory legislation do not fully align with principles
of participation in child protection decision-making.
Queensland’s legislation remains the most
comprehensive in the country in terms of meaningfully
supporting the participation of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children, families and communities,
and Victorian legislation is also closely aligned to this
purpose. Notably, legislation in both of these states
provides for the delegation of statutory powers to
ACCOs, creating the potential for enabling higher levels
of self-determination and meaningful participation
in child protection matters. However, only Victoria
has exercised this power to date, as discussed in
Part 3.3e below.
Further, Table 2 only indicates whether particular
principles of participation are legislatively enshrined.
It does not provide an overview of what is occurring
in practice in terms of governments ensuring the
meaningful participation of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children, families and organisations
in decision-making. The discussion below provides
an overview of practice.
b) Family and child participation
Models of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-
led decision-making (ATSIFLDM) promote meaningful
participation and self-determination of children and
their families in child protection decision-making.
TABLE 2 Alignment of state and territory child protection legislation with elements of participationi

ACTii NSWiii NTiv QLDv SAvi TASvii VICviii WAix

Aboriginal and Torres NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES
Strait Islander self-
determination is a
recognised principle
in the Act.
Aboriginal and NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES
Torres Strait Islander Participation
participation and/ requirements
or consultation is not specific
to decision
a decision making
making
principle in the Act.
Consultation/ NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO
participation of an Submissions Required by Required
external Aboriginal and considered principle, but by agreed
Torres Strait Islander no enabling protocol, but
process is not legislation
agency is expressly
specified
required for all
significant decisions.
Consultation with an NO YES NO YES YES NO YES NO
external Aboriginal and Internal or
Torres Strait Islander external
agency is expressly consultation
required prior to
placement decisions.
Input from external NO NO NO NO YES NO YES NO
Aboriginal and Torres Limited input For placement Evidence and For permanent
Strait Islander agencies requirement decisions only submissions care orders
is expressly required for long-term considered only
orders
in judicial decision-
making.
The Act mandates that YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
a child has meaningful Does not Does not Does not
opportunities to express stipulate how stipulate how stipulate how
his or her views and for children’s children’s children’s
views will be views will be views will be
those views to be given
responded to responded to responded to
due weight throughout and taken into and taken into and taken into
the decision-making account in all account in all account in all
process. processes processes processes

GREEN – Legislation aligned RED – Legislation not aligned GREY – Limited / significantly qualified alignment

Note: Legislatively enshrining mechanisms that facilitate meaningful participation of families in decision-making is important. However, as there
is no clear or consistent standard for legislating family participation mechanisms, a specific criterion on this is not included in Table 2. Part 3.3b
of this report examines how family participation can be meaningfully enabled in the context of child protection.

They provide opportunities to bring Indigenous cultural DHHS, 2019). Independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait
perspectives and worldviews to the fore in decision- Islander facilitators and agencies play a critical role in
making, ensuring respect for Indigenous values, family-led decision-making in line with research that
history and unique child rearing strengths (Drywater- indicates that family-led decision-making models are
Whitekiller, 2014; Ban, 2005). in danger of being ineffective to empower families and
communities where they remain wholly controlled and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-led
operated by non-Indigenous professionals and services
decision-making processes that have already been
(Ban, 2005). While strong partnerships with government
implemented in some states and territories are largely
child protection services are essential to any model
based on New Zealand’s family group conferencing
of family-led decision-making, Australian trials have
model with adaptations to enable unique Aboriginal
demonstrated the strengths and success of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander decision-making processes
and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision-making
supported by independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait
processes led by ACCOs (Ipsos & Winangali, 2017).
Islander facilitators and agencies (Ipsos & Winangali,
2017; AbSec’s Connecting Voices program, 2019;

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 81

 There has been some recent progress across Australia
to increase implementation of family-led decision-
making by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
facilitators and agencies and related processes.
Following Queensland’s successful trial between
2016-17, the Queensland Government rolled out a
Family Participation Program across the state, which
commenced in 2018 – and is providing funding to
15 ACCOs to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander families to participate in child protection
decision-making. Victoria continues its long-standing
statewide program, which has strong involvement by
ACCOs. A model of family group conferencing was
trialled successfully in the Australian Capital Territory
in partnership with Curijo, an Aboriginal business.
Preliminary data provided by the Australian Capital
Territory Government indicates that between November
2017 and May 2019, family group conferences were held
in relation to 65 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children. Forty-four of those children were successfully
prevented from entering care. The Australian Capital
Territory Government is rolling out the model across
the jurisdiction, committing $1.44 million in the 2018-19
budget.

c) Structures for representative participation

In addition to families and children being supported to
participate in decision-making at the individual level,
it is important to ensure that ACCOs, as independent
community-controlled organisations, are properly
resourced to participate in matters affecting Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities. In the child
protection context, representative participation
and having a meaningful participatory role means
guaranteeing the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander community representatives, external to
statutory agencies, in all service design and delivery,
as well as in individual child protection case decisions.
This includes involvement in case decisions at intake,
assessment, intervention, placement and care, and
judicial processes.
There has been some progress over the past year
to advance this objective, though, as with last year,
only Victoria and Queensland have Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander services across regions that
are specifically resourced to fulfill roles needed to
participate in child protection decision-making on a
statewide basis (SNAICC, 2013). In South Australia,
there is only one centralised service operating across
a very limited scope of decision-making points.
In Western Australia, a recent legislative review
recommended that a representative ACCO must be
consulted before a placement decision about an
Aboriginal child is made and an ACCO should be
provided with the opportunity to participate in the
development of a child’s cultural plan (Department
of Communities (WA), 2017). The proposed
legislative changes and resourcing for representative
organisations to conduct this work are yet to be
significantly progressed.

82 FAMILY MATTERS
 CASE STUDY
ABORIGINAL FAMILY AND KIN CARE
MODEL AND FAMILY AND KIN CARE
PILOT PROGRAMS, NORTHERN
TERRITORY
Recognising that Aboriginal children in out-of-home
care should be placed with their families and that
Aboriginal community-controlled organisations are
best placed to find placements for Aboriginal children,
the Northern Territory is currently undergoing
significant reform in relation to family and kin care.
Funded by Territory Families, Children Safe, Family
Together is a new family and kin care model for the
Northern Territory that was developed by Tangentyere
Council Aboriginal Corporation (Tangentyere Council)
through extensive consultation and drawing upon the
expert advice and support of the Victorian Aboriginal
Child Care Agency (VACCA). The model provides a
comprehensive approach to identifying, recruiting
and supporting Aboriginal family and kin carers
that is evidence-based and responsive to unique
community needs.
The new model proposes a four-phase approach to
family and kin care, which when viewed as a whole
represent the life cycle of a placement from start
to end:
Phase one – A child is at risk of entering or has
entered out-of-home care.
Phase two – Potential family and kinship carers
are assessed for a child.
Phase three – A placement is set up to succeed.
Phase four – The placement thrives and children
remain connected to their families, communities
and culture.
Each phase is made up of a distinct set of components.
The model drills down into each of these components,
providing specific information identifying every action
that needs to be undertaken in each phase, including
who has responsibility for which action within the
context of the lifecycle of a child’s family and kin
care placement.
d) Participation in legislation and policy
development; service design; and systems
oversight
In addition to participation of ACCOs in individual child
protection cases, meaningful participation also requires
the genuine inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander community representatives in legislation and
policy development; service design; and oversight of the
systems and services that impact children’s safety and
wellbeing. ACCOs must be viewed as equal partners
in these processes and their involvement is necessary
Full implementation of the four phases and their
corresponding components will ensure that
Aboriginal children who are subject to removal
from the family home are placed into safe, stable
and supported family and kin care placements.
A key focus of the model is increasing Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander self-determination and
community control, and ensuring that families and
communities are involved in key decision-making
processes around the care and protection of their
children. Attached to the model is a blueprint for
implementation that can be tailored to the needs
of individual communities within the Northern
Territory. These implementation guidelines
also offer strategies for building the capacity of
Aboriginal community-controlled organisations
to deliver family and kin care-based services.
The Northern Territory Government has
endorsed the model and committed to its full
implementation across a five-year period.
The model was officially launched by the Minister
of Territory Families and the CEO of Tangentyere
Council in September 2019.
Kin Care Pilot Programs
Alongside policy reform, Territory Families has
funded Ngurratjuta/ Pmara Ntjarra Aboriginal
Corporation, Larrakia Nation Aboriginal
Corporation and Tangentyere Council to pilot kin
care programs. Territory Families has supported
these Aboriginal organisations to take the lead
in finding family for Aboriginal children who are
unable to live with their parents and recruiting
and supporting Aboriginal kin carers. Since these
programs were introduced, 42 Aboriginal children
have been placed with Aboriginal carers (an
increase of 18% since the previous year).
Sources: Children Safe, Family Together (Tangentyere Council),
Territory Families
to ensure that laws, policies and practice in child
and family welfare are culturally safe and responsive
(Building Block 2) and that governments and services
are accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people (Building Block 3).
Holding forums to hear the voice of young people
and the issues that they face in their community.
Ask the youth what they need and want rather
suspecting and judging. Holding empowering
youth summits. – Young person from the
Biripi Mob, Taree, 24 years old
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 83
 LEGISLATION, POLICY AND SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT
Participation in the development of policies, legislation
and services is enabled to varying degrees across
jurisdictions through the establishment and resourcing
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies.
Peaks operate in Queensland and New South Wales,
with a dedicated focus on the child protection and
family services sector, and at the national level through
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children. Significant
policy participation roles are also resourced in Victoria
through the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
(VACCA) and the Victorian Aboriginal Children & Young
People’s Alliance. While there is no statewide peak in
Western Australia, the recently established Noongar
Family Safety and Wellbeing Council works to provide
a strong voice for Noongar children and families and
advocate on their behalf.
It is important to note, however, that the establishment
and resourcing of peak bodies does not constitute
meaningful participation if these bodies are not
appropriately consulted in the development of laws and
policies that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, families and communities. For example, in late
2018, the NSW Government in a regressive step passed
significant child protection legislative amendments
without meaningful consultations with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait organisations and communities in the
state. The NSW Government did, however, work in
partnership with AbSec to develop the Aboriginal Case
Management Policy and the accompanying Rules and
Practice Guidance handbook, recently endorsed by
Family and Community Services.
ABORIGINAL CASE MANAGEMENT POLICY,
NEW SOUTH WALES
In 2017, Family and Community Services New
South Wales (FACS), now known as the Department
of Communities and Justice, commissioned AbSec,
as the peak organisation for Aboriginal children
and families in the state, to lead the development
of the Aboriginal Case Management Policy and
the accompanying Rules and Practice Guidance
handbook. The policy seeks to respond to the
specific needs of Aboriginal families and children
across the child protection continuum, with a
strong focus on prevention and early intervention,
and oversight of policy implementation through
Aboriginal community-controlled mechanisms.
AbSec consulted widely with Aboriginal
communities and non-Indigenous stakeholders
before developing the resource and the policy is
considered to be holistic and culturally responsive.
In 2019, the policy was endorsed by
the department.
Community-controlled organisations have stressed
the need for the Aboriginal Case Management
Policy to be properly resourced and immediately
implemented in genuine partnership with
AbSec and Aboriginal communities and their
organisations. In particular, the appropriate
mechanisms for ongoing oversight by and
accountability to Aboriginal communities that
form part of the policy must be implemented to
ensure that the department is held accountable
to its commitments.
Source: AbSec – NSW Child, Family and Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation

Participation in the design of services is also critical

for ensuring their cultural responsiveness. The Family
Wellbeing Services in Queensland, discussed in the
below case study, are an example of the positive
outcomes that eventuate when Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people take the lead in the design and
delivery of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander families and children.
While state and territory governments are primarily
responsible for child protection services, the federal
government’s laws, policies and services also
significantly impact the drivers of, and responses
to, child removals. For example, policies on income
support and early childhood education and care have
a direct impact on family wellbeing. There have been
some positive steps at the federal level to ensure
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in
the design of policies aimed at improving outcomes
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
families. For example, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Working Group within the National Framework
plays a significant role in driving the work of the Fourth
Action Plan of the Framework as it relates to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children.

84 FAMILY MATTERS

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
FAMILY WELLBEING SERVICES, QUEENSLAND
The Queensland Government has upheld its Our
Way strategy commitment to support community
controlled service design and delivery by
investing $34.34 million per annum to roll out
33 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family
Wellbeing Services to support families who may
be experiencing vulnerability across the state.
These services work with various culturally
appropriate universal, secondary and specialist
services; placement services; Family Participation
Program services; and with individual families
to provide tailored, holistic and coordinated
supports to meet each family’s unique needs. This
includes working to strengthen families with early
intervention to prevent concerns from escalating,
to intensive family supports for families that are
already in contact with the child protection system.
Data from the first 12 months of operation
demonstrate that the 33 Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander organisations that deliver early
intervention support to families have achieved
half the rate of re-notifications to the department
compared with mainstream, non-Indigenous
organisations (Lewis, 2019). Further, according to
government data, 67% of families who accessed
these services had their cases closed with all or
the majority of their needs met, or at least some
of their needs met.
Source: Queensland Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women
This work includes developing national indicators of
implementation of the Child Placement Principle and
monitoring compliance of all states and territories with
all five elements of the Principle.
The Joint Council on Closing the Gap (Joint Council),
established in December 2018, also has the potential
to place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
at the forefront of developing solutions to social
disadvantage. The Joint Council is responsible for
finalising all draft Closing the Gap targets, reviewing the
National Indigenous Reform Agreement and developing
an independent, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-
led approach to the evaluation and review of progress
to meet the targets nationally and in each jurisdiction.
Draft targets have included a focus on addressing over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in out-of-home care.
Despite this progress, there are also examples of
policies at the federal level that were developed
with minimal input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait
communities yet have adverse impacts on them. For
example, the ParentsNext program requires parents
with young children to participate in “activities” in
order to receive parenting payments. If a parent fails to
complete the “activities” and report their compliance,
they face financial sanctions in the form of payment
suspensions, reductions or cancellations. The program
is mandatory for women who have received parenting
payments during the last six months, have not been
employed during that period, have a child under six
years old and meet at least one high risk/high priority
criteria. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents
comprise 19% of ParentsNext participants but make
up just 3% of the adult population nationwide (NFVPLS,
SNAICC, & HRLC, 2019). The federal government
has stated that the program is aimed at supporting
parents to return to, or secure employment after
having children (Department of Human Services, 2019).
However, the program has been found to be punitive,
causing vulnerable families to fall further into poverty
(Community Affairs References Committee, 2019a),
and exacerbating certain drivers of child protection
intervention.
Following an inquiry into the program, the Senate
Community Affairs References Committee
recommended that the ParentsNext program
undergo reforms to redress the structural barriers to
employment faced by participants (Community Affairs
References Committee, 2019b). Punitive approaches
to systemic social issues have not been found to be
effective (Klein & Razi, 2018).
At the state and territory level, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander participation has been strengthened
where comprehensive strategies for reform have been
developed in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander leaders, targeting whole of government
actions to improve safety and wellbeing for children.
This is most evident in Queensland and Victoria. In
Victoria, Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Aboriginal Children
and Families Agreement, was signed in 2018 and is
the first tripartite agreement between the Aboriginal
community, the child and family services sector and
the government. The agreement sets out a partnership
approach to improving outcomes for Aboriginal children
and young people in Victoria. The accompanying
action plan outlines specific steps to address over-
representation, with the Victorian Government
committing $53.5 million to implement the agreed-
upon strategies. The agreement and action plan aim
to progress self-determination for Aboriginal peoples
by ensuring that Aboriginal organisations are fully
resourced to participate in program design and delivery.
The implementation of the agreement is overseen by
the Aboriginal Children’s Forum, comprised primarily
of ACCOs working in the sector.
In Queensland, the Our Way strategy represents a
dedicated, 20-year strategy to eliminate the over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children in the statutory child protection system.
The Queensland First Children and Families Board
was established to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander oversight of the strategy’s implementation.
Western Australia has recently announced a
commitment to consulting with SNAICC – National
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 85
 Voice for our Children and local Aboriginal communities
to develop a new “action plan” to reduce over-
representation. This plan will be formed around the
four building blocks of the Family Matters campaign
and will seek to follow Queensland’s Our Way strategy.
It is anticipated that the action plan will be introduced
in early 2020.
Family Matters has consistently called for this kind of
comprehensive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children’s strategy, with an accompanying Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander oversight mechanism, to
improve outcomes for children at the national level.
Finally, there are significant movements towards
increasing self-determination at the higher level of
relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples and governments that have the
potential to increase community leadership on the
safety and wellbeing of children and families. These
include the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and its
call to enshrine a First Nations Voice in the Australian
Constitution and the development of treaties between
some state and territory governments and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
SYSTEMS OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW
Participation in systems oversight and review is
important for ensuring that governments across
Australia are accountable to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people (Building Block 4). Accountability
is enhanced by the appointment of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children’s commissioners. Given
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and young people experience disproportionately high
levels of disadvantage and discrimination, dedicated
commissioners could play a vital role in providing a voice
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and
ensuring a dedicated focus on advancing their rights.
No progress has been made in the appointment of
a national commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and young people. There
are four states that have a position identified for an
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person in the role of
commissioner for children or assistant commissioner
¬– Victoria, the Northern Territory, South Australia and
Queensland – with only Victoria and South Australia
supporting the operation of a dedicated commissioner
for Aboriginal children and young people. Community
representatives in many of the other jurisdictions
have been calling for dedicated commissioners to
be established but have had limited success to date.
86 FAMILY MATTERS
THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL COMMISSIONER
FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and young people around the country experience
widespread and persistent discrimination and
disadvantage, impacting on current and future
generations. There is an urgent need and
imperative to establish a dedicated national
commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and young people to provide
improved oversight and accountability for systems
and services to improve the protection of the rights
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and young people.
A dedicated national commissioner should form
part of the Australian Human Rights Commission on
equal footing with the existing commissioner roles.
The national commissioner should be established
in conformity with the United Nations benchmark
guidelines for national human rights institutions,
known as the ‘Paris Principles’. To achieve this,
the role of the national commissioner must:
• be established by legislation to ensure its
independence and autonomy from government
• be filled by an identified Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander person with appropriate
qualifications, knowledge and experience,
appointed through a transparent process
• be mandated with a clear scope and purpose
for the role
• be granted appropriate functions and powers
to promote systemic change and accountability,
this includes powers to conduct inquires
• be adequately resourced to perform its role
effectively.
Commissioners with similar powers and functions
should also be established in every state and
territory. State and territory commissioner roles
currently in place, as mentioned above, should
be reviewed against the Paris Principles and
updated to ensure sufficient functions, powers
and consistency.
e) Investment in service delivery by Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander community-
controlled organisations ACCO
In order to effectively respond to the needs of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children and families and
ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples’ right to participation and self-determination
are fulfilled, ACCOs must be adequately funded to
design and deliver programs that reflect the needs
of the communities in which they work.
International and Australian evidence strongly supports
the importance of Indigenous participation for achieving
positive outcomes in service delivery for Indigenous
children and families. Studies in the United States have
found that the best outcomes in community wellbeing
and development for Indigenous peoples are achieved
when those peoples have control over their own lives
and are empowered to respond to and address the
problems facing their own communities (Cornell &
Taylor, 2000). Canadian research has shown a direct
correlation between increased Indigenous community-
control of services and improved health outcomes for
Indigenous peoples (Lavoie et al., 2010) and a direct
connection between Indigenous self-government and
reduced rates of youth-suicide (Chandler & Lalonde,
1998).
Existing ACCO-led and delivered programs in Australia,
such as: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family
Wellbeing Services in Queensland (discussed in a case
study above); the transfer of Aboriginal children to the
care of ACCOs in Victoria (discussed in the following
case study); and multifunctional Aboriginal children’s
services (MACS) and Aboriginal child and family centres
across Australia (discussed in Part 2) have also seen
promising results.
Numerous Australian reports and inquiries confirm a
lack of robust community governance and meaningful
Indigenous community participation as major
contributors to past failures of government policies
(ANAO, 2012; Cunneen & Libesman, 2002; NSW
Ombudsman, 2011). These reports commonly highlight
the importance of building the capacity of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled
children and family services. The Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO) found that building the role and
capacity of ACCOs is not only important for effective
service delivery, but an important policy objective in
its own right in so far as it promotes local governance,
leadership and economic participation, building social
capital for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
(ANAO, 2012). Twenty years ago, the Bringing Them
Home report concluded that community development
approaches to addressing child protection issues
were needed, not traditional models of child welfare
that “pathologise and individualise Indigenous child
protection needs” (HREOC, 1997, pp. 453-454)
The evidence confirms the effectiveness of Indigenous-
led service design and delivery in consistently producing
better results, and links Indigenous community
empowerment to broadly positive social and emotional
wellbeing outcomes for community members. However,
effectiveness can only be sustained through adequate
resourcing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community-controlled child protection and family
support services.
States and territories were invited by the Family
Matters co-chairs to provide data on their investment
in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-
controlled child protection and family support
services in 2017-18, using the Report on Government
Services definitions and counting rules. This year,
four jurisdictions provided data. Data provided by
the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia,
the Northern Territory and Queensland are not
comparable due to different inclusions in the data.
The Australian Capital Territory provided data on
expenditure on family support services only, of which
6% went to one ACCO to support child, youth and family
service programs in 2017-18, and in 2018-19. This
percentage was the same in the 2016-17 reporting
period, though there was no specification of which
services were funded in that period.
Notably, data from Western Australia are very different
to data reported by other states and territories as the
total expenditure provided in each category is only for
external funded services, not the total state investment,
meaning that percentage funding to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander agencies appears higher than
it would if the total budget funding was reported.
Western Australia reported that in 2017-18, 11% of
family support and intensive family support funding,
and 11% of total out-of-home care funding, went to
Aboriginal community-controlled services. Western
Australia also reported that 13% of expenditure on
family and domestic violence support services went
to community-controlled services. Overall, 12% was
reported as being expended on community-controlled
services, in comparison with 10% in 2016-17.
The Northern Territory provided the following data on
expenditure to ACCOs:
• 1.8% of family support funding went to ACCOs
(a decrease of 5.2% since 2016-17)
• 14.9% of intensive family support funding went
to ACCOs
• 0.3% of child protection funding went to ACCOs
(a significant decrease of 10.7% since 2016-17)
• 2% of funding to out-of-home care services
went to ACCOs.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 87
 Overall, ACCOs received just 2.4% of funding spent on
child protection, out-of-home care and family support
services in the Northern Territory. This indicates that
service delivery continues to be dominated by non-
Indigenous providers that provide limited cultural safety
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients.
Queensland provided data indicating that in 2017-18:
• 19.6% of family support funding went to ACCOs
(a significant increase of 6.4% since 2016-17)
• 34% of intensive family support funding went to
ACCOs (an increase of 5.4% since 2016-17)
• 45% of child protection funding went to ACCOs
• 2.6% of out-of-home care funding went to ACCOs.
Queensland also provided data for expenditure in
2018-19 across these same four categories, reporting
expenditure of 20.2%, 31.4% (a decrease of 2.6% since
2017-18), 44% and 2.6% respectively on ACCOs.
CASE STUDY
ABORIGINAL CHILDREN IN ABORIGINAL CARE, VICTORIA
In Victoria, Aboriginal Children in Aboriginal Care is
the program name, which enables s18 of the Children
Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic.). Section 18 enables
the Secretary of the department to authorise the
principal officer of an Aboriginal agency to perform
specified functions and exercise specified powers
conferred on the Secretary by or under this Act
in relation to a protection order in respect of an
Aboriginal child.
Section 18 allows an authorised Aboriginal
community-controlled organisation (ACCO) to
assume responsibility for the child’s case plan and
case management. The ACCO will be responsible
for managing the child’s protection order and any
court ordered conditions. The ACCO will also oversee
all day-to-day decision making for the child and be
responsible for their safety.
As part of this process, VACCA launched its Nugel
program in November 2017. Nugel is the Wurundjeri
word for “belong”. Nugel has led the way in developing
a new model of child protection practice, which
is premised on Aboriginal organisations working
in partnership with Aboriginal families to achieve
better outcomes for Aboriginal children and young
people. Nugel is committed to involving children and
families in decision-making and case planning. Nugel
promotes Aboriginal self-determination in order
for children to grow up resilient with self-belief and
identity, knowing who they are and where they belong.
88 FAMILY MATTERS
Overall, community-controlled services received 14%
of funding spent on child protection, out-of-home care,
family support and intensive family support services
in Queensland in 2017-18, and 13.5% in 2018-19.
Due to extensive specification of inclusions and
exclusions, these details are available separately
accompanying the Queensland Government update
on the Family Matters website.
In 2018, 36 children were transferred to Nugel.
Five of these children, who had previously been on
Family Preservation Orders, were assessed to be
living in a stable home environment with their family
and were able to be discharged from an order safely.
Two children (from two different families) were able
to be returned to the full-time care of their parents
after intensive work from Nugel case managers in
engaging previously disengaged parents.
The Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-Operative
(BDAC) in regional Victoria launched a similar
program called Mutjang Bupuwingarrak Mukman,
which means “keeping kids safe” in the Dja Dja
Wurrung language. The program currently has
36 Aboriginal children with plans to increase this
number to 72 in 2020 and 110 in 2021 (VACYP, 2019).
According to the Victorian Aboriginal Children &
Young People’s Alliance, “During the pilot program
all children remained connected to their culture and
communities, half were placed into kinship care and
half were reunified with their parents” (VACYP, 2019).
Two other ACCOs in Victoria are in the process of
gaining authority to case manage Aboriginal children.
By June 2020, 216 Aboriginal children will be
authorised to an ACCO.
Sources: Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and Victorian Aboriginal Children
& Young People’s Alliance
DATA GAPS
STATE AND TERRITORY DATA ON
EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES
STRAIT ISLANDER CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
AND COMMUNITY-CONTROLLED SERVICES
Reported data by some jurisdictions are limited
in showing the percentage of expenditure on
family support, intensive family support and child
protection services targeted to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and families,
and/or delivered by community-controlled
agencies. These data are needed to ensure a
better understanding of the costs of service
provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children, and relative investment in culturally
safe and targeted interventions that could prevent
their entry to out-of-home care, or promote early
reunification or restoration with family.

THE INDIGENOUS EXPENDITURE REPORT

Two key gaps need to be addressed concurrently
in the collection and reporting of Indigenous
expenditure data, through the Productivity
Commission’s Indigenous Expenditure Report,
to provide a meaningful indication of the extent to
which community-controlled services are enabled
to respond to the needs of children and families:
1. Indigenous expenditure data needs to include
child protection and family support services.
2. Data must differentiate between Indigenous-
specific service delivered by community-
controlled organisation and those delivered
by governments and mainstream services.
The available data on investment in family support
services has significant comparability issues
because there is no nationally agreed upon
definition of family support service with variations
in types and levels of support across jurisdictions.
Recommendation: The federal, state and territory
governments urgently progress the development
and reporting of nationally consistent data that
identifies expenditure on child protection and family
support services both provided to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and provided by
community-controlled services.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 89

90 FAMILY MATTERS
CONCLUSION AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Successive Family Matters reports have shown that we have yet to turn the tide on over-
representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care – in fact,
overall, the data represents that the situation is getting progressively worse. While genuine
efforts are underway in many jurisdictions to improve safety and wellbeing for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children and families, the Family Matters campaign believes that the crisis
of child protection intervention will only be acted on at the pace required if the Commonwealth
and state/territory governments commit to and work together as a coalition towards an Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children’s strategy, in partnership with our leaders and communities.
The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s This year, our key recommendations are structured
Children 2009 – 2020 (the National Framework) is around the Family Matters Roadmap building blocks
the current policy approach led by the Council of for change. These provide a strong starting point
Australian Governments (COAG) for ensuring the from which to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait
safety and wellbeing of Australia’s children, and aims Islander child safety and wellbeing and empower our
to deliver a reduction in rates of child abuse and families and communities to care for and protect future
neglect. The National Framework is nearing its end generations.
date in 2020. Efforts through the National Framework
have proved inadequate to achieve substantial change
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
with their over-representation in out-of-home care
continuing to rise year on year. It is now all but certain
that at the conclusion of the Framework in 2020 we
will have regressed significantly in the achievement of
the Framework’s goal that “Indigenous children are
supported and safe in strong, thriving families and
communities to reduce the over-representation of
Indigenous children in child protection systems”
(COAG, 2009, p. 28).
However, with the end of the National Framework, there
is an important opportunity to identify and implement
new approaches to improve safety and wellbeing for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and
strengthen the policies, programs and services that are
working well. Concurrently, all Australian governments
are renewing the broader framework and targets for the
Closing the Gap initiative in partnership with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peaks, with a draft target
to address the over-representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care
considered by the Council of Australian Governments
in December 2018. As the experience of the National
Framework highlights, this target will only be achieved
through a more concerted and coordinated effort at the
national level to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children are safe and have the opportunity
to thrive.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 91

 We recommend:

NATIONAL STRATEGY
1. Develop a national comprehensive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s strategy that includes
generational targets to eliminate over-representation and address the causes of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander child removal. The Family Matters Roadmap, which has been developed through extensive
review of the evidence and consultation with leading Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experts, provides
a vision and clear strategies to inform a strategy for achieving fundamental change to policy and practice.
The strategy is an overarching approach that will support implementation and progress in achieving the
recommendations that follow, in alignment with the Roadmap’s building blocks for change.
While the National Framework’s focus on priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children has
improved in recent years, it has proved inadequate to achieve substantial change for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children – a dedicated strategy that targets the drivers of child protection intervention is
essential. The strategy will serve as a coordination point for a number of related national strategies,
including the Closing the Gap Refresh, the Indigenous Health Performance Framework and the National
Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children (2010-2022), around their efforts to improve
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to ensure a cross-portfolio approach.

Building Block 1
All families enjoy access to quality, culturally safe, universal and targeted services necessary for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children to thrive
2. Establish a target and strategy to increase investment in universal and targeted early intervention and
prevention services, including family support and reunification services, with a focus on community-led
initiatives.
As we near the end of the National Framework proportional investment into early intervention has not risen
despite the Framework advocating for greater investment. A clear strategy and target are critical to drive a
shift to a public health model with strong prevention and early intervention measures.
As a component of the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s strategy, this focus would
drive investment in evidence-based and culturally safe early childhood education and care, maternal and
child health, trauma, healing and family support services, as well as family violence prevention and response.
It would assist in redressing the adult-related issues impacting the care of children.
An increase in proportional investment to early intervention cannot safely be achieved by simply shifting
funding from an already stretched child protection and out-of-home care sector. What is needed is the
foresight of governments to invest more in and recognise the long-term cost and societal benefits of early
intervention that are born out in the evidence.
3. Establish a target and strategy to increase access to preventative early years services in early childhood
education and care (ECEC), maternal and child health, and family support, including investing in quality
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled integrated early years services through a
specific program with targets to increase coverage in areas of high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
population and high levels of disadvantage.
The evidence shows us that greater access to maternal and child health services, and early childhood
education and care, can increase the resources and knowledge available to families to deal with child
protection concerns.
The early years sector offers one of the most powerful opportunities for changing the trajectory of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children and families. Aboriginal Child and Family Centres and Multifunctional
Aboriginal Children’s Services offer a unique type of support for our children and families that is culturally
grounded, holistic, trauma-informed and responsive to the complex and multi-faceted needs facing children
and families that are experiencing high levels of vulnerability. These services provide an essential lifeline for
children and families that are unable or unwilling to access mainstream services due to experiences of both
racial discrimination and culturally inappropriate practices. However, many services are under-resourced to
reach their potential, and have faced high levels of funding instability and cuts over recent years.
The move to subsidy-based and market-driven models of childcare designed for working families, through
reforms introduced in 2018, has only increased concern about the future effectiveness and viability of these
vital preventive services. A well-resourced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ECEC sector is an essential
and indispensable component to preventing trajectories that lead to child protection intervention and must
be supported.

92 FAMILY MATTERS
Building Block 2
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations participate in and have control over decisions
that affect their children
4. Prioritise investment in service delivery by community-controlled organisations in line with self-
determination. Investment should reflect needs and be proportionate to the engagement of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander families within child protection systems.
This report identifies the critical importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led service delivery
to improving outcomes for children.
It is essential that services are strengthened and supported so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people lead the service design and delivery and the decision-making for our children. However, the limited
data available on investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies demonstrates that investment
is vastly disproportionate to the level of engagement of our families in child protection.
Investment in community-controlled organisations should be proportionate to the engagement Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander families involved with child protection systems.
Many investment approaches have moved away from non-competitive needs-based funding to competitive
tendering processes. There are also limitations due to tightly constrained service delivery models and
contract requirements that do not allow our agencies to design community-driven approaches for achieving
the desired outcomes.
Note: Further recommendations to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child, family and community
participation in decisions for children are integrated throughout all Family Matters Report recommendations.

Building Block 3
Law, policy and practice in child and family welfare are culturally safe and responsive
5. An end to legal orders for permanent care and adoption for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children,
replaced by a focus on supporting the permanence of their identity in connection with their kin and culture.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people must be provided with opportunities to design alternative policies
to support stability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in connection with kin, culture and
community. Although Family Matters recommends that permanent care orders or adoption not be used for
our children, where permanent care orders are used, they must never be applied without clear evidence that
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has been fully applied, and without the
endorsement of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency. Legislation should be put in place in every
state and territory to require that an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency must approve the making
of a permanent care order for any Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander child.
Permanence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is developed from a communal sense of
belonging; experiences of cultural connection; and a stable sense of identity including knowing where they
are from, and their place in relation to family, mob, community, land and culture (SNAICC, 2016).
This report demonstrates that inadequate efforts are being progressed to support families to stay together,
or to ensure children’s connections to culture and family are maintained. In these circumstances, the pursuit
of permanent care orders, particularly within limited mandated legal timeframes, presents an unacceptable
level of risk to our children’s stable sense of identity and cultural connection.
6. Adopt national standards to ensure family support and child protection legislation, policy and practices
are in adherence to all five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle,
including requirements for:
a. increased representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, children and communities at
each stage of the decision-making process, including through independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander family-led decision-making
b. increased investment in reunification services to ensure children are not spending longer in out-of-home
care than is necessary due to inadequate planning and support for parents; and increased investment in
support services for families once children are returned
c. increased efforts to connect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care to family
and culture, through cultural support planning, family finding, return to country, and kinship care support
programs.

THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 93

 Building Block 4
Governments and services are accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
7. Establishment and resourcing of roles and bodies that enable participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people in policy and service design and in the oversight of systems impacting their children,
including state-based and national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s commissioners.
If genuine self-determination and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led co-design are to emerge,
then formal roles must be established for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to oversee and
guide policy and service design and implementation, and to hold governments and services accountable
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies are needed in each jurisdiction to enable a community-
controlled sector representative voice that can direct the response to child protection concerns based on
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives. Peaks have critical roles to play in legislation and policy
development and in the support and establishment of quality and effective community-controlled service
systems.
The scale and specificity of the issues impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children also calls
for dedicated commissioners nationally and in each state and territory. Their role is pivotal in providing
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership to advocate for both children and families on the one hand,
and legislative and departmental transformation on the other. They would be responsible for investigating
and shining the light on necessary issues, monitoring progress and brokering solutions.
8. Development and publication of data to better measure the situation of the over-representation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in child protection systems. As a priority we call on all
jurisdictions to address gaps in the data that they provide for the Family Matters report as outlined in
this report.
Current data sets do not track progress against the things that matter most for improving safety and
wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. What is required is a much broader set of
data that can meaningfully indicate whether the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and their rights to healthy development and connection with community, family and culture are being met
in their interactions with child protection systems.
Future data development should take account of identified gaps throughout this report.

94 FAMILY MATTERS
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 95
REFERENCES
AbSec. (2018). Inquiry into local adoption,
retrieved 30 October 2018 from https://
nacchocommunique.files.wordpress.
com/2018/08/absec-adoption-submission.pdf
AbSec. (2019), Connecting Voices. Retrieved from
https://www.absec.org.au/connecting-voices.
html.
Allen, K. (2013). Value for Everyone: Understanding
the social and economic benefits of family support
services. Canberra: Family Relationships
Services Australia.
AMSANT. (2018). “Listening and hearing are two
different things”: Aboriginal community voices
on proposed Child Protection and Youth Justice
reforms in the Northern Territory. Retrieved
from http://www.amsant.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2018/07/Listening-and-Hearing-are-T
wo-Different-Things-Final-Report-6-July-2018.
pdf.
Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting
scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress
Scale (K10). Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Public Health, 25(6), 494-497.
Arabena, K., Howell-Muers, S., Ritte, R.,
Munro-Harrison, E., & Onemda VicHealth Koori
Health Unit. (2015). Making a World of Difference
- The First 1,000 Days Scientific Symposium
report by Indigenous Health Equity Unit,
Onemda VicHealth Group, Melbourne School
of Population and Global Health, presented at
Making a World of Difference: The First 1,000
Days Scientific Symposium 2015, University of
Melbourne: Melbourne.
ARACY. (2008). Inverting the pyramid:
Enhancing systems for protecting children.
Retrieved from https://www.aracy.org.au/
publications-resources/command/download_file/
id/107/filename/Inverting_the_pyramid_-_
Enhancing_systems_for_protecting_children.pdf
Arney, F. (2019). Child and family focused system
redesign: Harnessing early intervention and
prevention potential to change the lives of children.
Paper presented at SNAICC National Conference,
Adelaide.
Arney, F., Iannos, M., Chong, A., McDougall,
S., & Parkinson, S. (2015). Enhancing the
implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander child placement principle: Policy and
practice considerations, retrieved 29 October 2018
from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/
cfca34.pdf
96 FAMILY MATTERS
Atkinson, J. (2013). Trauma-informed services
and trauma-specific care for Indigenous
Australian children. Resource sheet no. 21.
Canberra: Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. http://
www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/
Content/Publications2013/ctg rs21.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Census
of population and housing: Characteristics of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians
2016, Housing tenure, housing affordability and
housing suitability. Retrieved from https://www.
abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/
2076.0Main%20Features712016?opendocument
&tabname=Summary&prodno=2076.0&issue=
2016&num=&view=
Australian Centre for Child Protection. (2017).
Intensive Family Support Service (IFSS) Service
Improvement Project: Strengthening the IFSS
referral pathways and service integration, retrieved
from https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.
gov.au/NT-public-hearings/Documents/
evidence-2017/evidence2November/Exh-1127-
001.pdf
Australian Council of Social Services. (2018).
2018 Poverty in Australia. Sydney: Author.
Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute. (2012). Housing affordability, housing
stress and household wellbeing in Australia.
Retrieved from: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/
research/final-reports/192.
Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council.
(2012). Clinical practice guidelines: Antenatal care
– Module 1. Canberra: Department of Health and
Ageing.
Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association.
(2017). Racism in Australia’s health system.
Retrieved from https://www.aida.org.au/
wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Racism-in-Australi
as-health-system-AIDA-policy-statement_v1.pdf
Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. (2019).
Social and emotional wellbeing. Retrieved
from https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/
health-topics/social-and-emotional-wellbeing/
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2016). Permanency planning in child protection: A
review of current concepts and available data 2016.
Canberra, ACT: Author.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2018a). Adoptions Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/6d9374b3-
974c-4ba3-8134-d59979733c87/aihw-cws-66.pdf.
aspx?inline=true
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2018b). Children’s Headline Indicators.
Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/
children-youth/childrens-headline-indicators.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2018c). Child protection Australia 2016-17.
Canberra, ACT: Author.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2018d). Family, domestic and sexual violence
in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.
gov.au/getmedia/d1a8d479-a39a-48c1-bbe2-
4b27c7a321e0/aihw-fdv-02.pdf.aspx?inline=true
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people: A focus report on housing and
homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.
gov.au/getmedia/1654e011-dccb-49d4-bf5b-
09c4607eecc8/aihw-hou-301.pdf.aspx?inline=true
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019b). Alcohol and other drug treatment services
in Australia 2017-18. Retrieved from https://www.
aihw.gov.au/reports/alcohol-other-drug-treatme
nt-services/aodts-2017-18/data
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019c). Australia’s mothers and babies 2017.
Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/
mothers-babies/australias-mothers-and-babies-
2017-in-brief/contents/table-of-contents
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019d). Child protection Australia 2017-18.
Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/
child-protection/child-protection-austral
ia-2017-18/contents/table-of-contents
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019e). Children living in households with
members of the Stolen Generations. Cat.
No. IHW 214. Canberra: Author. Retrieved
from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/
indigenous-australians/children-living-in-h
ouseholds-with-members-of-the/contents/
table-of-contents
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
(2019f). National framework for protecting
Australia’s children indicators. Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2010).
Issues for the safety and wellbeing of children
in families with multiple and complex problems:
The co-occurrence of domestic violence, parental
substance misuse, and mental health problems,
retrieved 12 October 2018 from https://aifs.gov.
au/cfca/publications/issues-safety-and-wellbei
ng-children-families/how-do-drug-and-alcohol-
misuse-mental
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2017). Risk
and protective factors for child abuse and neglect,
retrieved 09 October 2018 from https://aifs.gov.
au/cfca/publications/risk-and-protective-factors-
child-abuse-and-neglect
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).
(2012). Capacity Development for Indigenous
Service Delivery, Audit Report No. 26, 2011-2012.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Baidawi, S., Mendes, P., & Saunders, B. (2016).
The complexities of cultural support planning for
Indigenous children in and leaving out-of-home
care: The views of service providers in Victoria,
Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2),
731-750.
Ban, P. (2005). Aboriginal Child Placement
Principle and Family Group Conferences,
Australian Social Work 58(4), p384-394.
Berry Street. (2016). Inquiry into the
implementation of the Children, Youth and
Families Amendment (Permanent Care and other
matters) Act 2014. Retrieved from https://www.
berrystreet.org.au/sites/default/files/6%20
Berry%20Street%20Submission%20CCYP%20
permanency%20reforms%20review.pdf
Biddle, N., & Bath, J. (2013). CAEPR Indigenous
Population Project 2011 Census Papers.
Paper 7, Education Part 1: Early childhood
education. Canberra, ACT: CAEPR, Australian
National University.
Brennan, D. (2013). Review of NSW Government
funding for early childhood education. Marrickville:
Social Policy Research Centre.
Bromfield, L.M., Higgins, J.R., Higgins, D.J. &
Richardson, N. (2007). Barriers, incentives and
strategies to enhance recruitment of Indigenous
carers. Retrieved from http://aifs. gov.au/cfca/
publications/barriers-incentives-a nd-strategies-
enhance-recruitment-o.
Bromfield, L.M., Lamont, A., Parker, R., &
Horsfall, B. (2010). Issues for the safety and
wellbeing of children in families with multiple and
complex problems: The co-occurrence of domestic
violence, parental substance misuse, and mental
health problems. Melbourne: Australian Institute
of Family Studies.
Calma, T., Dudgeon, P., & Bray, A. (2017).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social
and emotional wellbeing and mental health.
Australian Psychologist, 52(4), 255-260.
Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Burchinal, M.,
Kainz, K., Pan, Y., Wasik, B. H., … Ramey, C. T.
(2012). Adult outcomes as a function of an early
childhood educational program: An Abecedarian
Project followup. Developmental Psychology,
48(4), 1033–1043.
Centre for Community Child Health. (2018). The
First Thousand Days: Our greatest opportunity.
Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/5d1563ccaaafe00001ca3d2c/t/5
d33fb2401c35900017696f8/1563687743670/
First1000DaysAustralia_CCCH-PolicyBrief28.pdf
Chandler, M., & Lalonde, C. (1998). Cultural
Continuity as a Hedge Against Suicide in Canada’s
First Nations. Retrieved from: http://web.uvic.
ca/~lalonde/manuscripts/1998TransCultural.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2014).
Parental substance use and the child welfare
system. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.
gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse/
Commission for Children and Young People
(Victoria). (2015). In the Child’s Best Interests:
Inquiry into Compliance with the Intent of the
Aboriginal Child Placement Principle in Victoria.
Melbourne, Victoria: Author.
Commission for Children and Young People
(Victoria). (2017). Safe and wanted: Inquiry
into permanency arrangements. Retrieved
from https://dhhs.vic.gov.au/publications/
safe-and-wanted-inquiry-implementati
on-permanency-arrangements
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General
Comment. (2009a). No. 11: Indigenous Children
and their Rights under the Convention, 2009,
CRC/C/ GC/11, 12 February 2009.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General
Comment. (2009b). No. 12: The right of the child
to be heard, 2009, CRC/C/GC/12, 20 July.
Cornell, S., and Taylor J. (2000). Sovereignty,
Devolution, and the Future of Tribal-State
Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University, pp.6-
7. Retrieved from http://hpaied.org/images/
resources/publibrary/PRS00-4.pdf
de Costa, C.M., & Wenitong, M. (2009). Could the
Baby Bonus be a bonus for babies? The Medical
Journal of Australia, 190(5), 242-242.
Council of Australian Governments. (COAG).
(2009). Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business:
National Framework for Protecting Australia’s
Children 2009–2020. Retrieved from https://
www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/
child_protection_framework.pdf
Council of Australian Governments. (COAG).
(2009). National Partnership Agreement
on Early Childhood Education. Retrieved
from https://www.education.gov.au/
national-partnership-agreements
Courtney, M.E., Dworsky, A., Piliavin, I., & Zinn,
A. (2005). Involvement of TANF applicant families
with child welfare services. Social Service Review,
79(1), 119-157.
CREATE Foundation. (2018). Out-of-home care
in Australia: Children and young people’s views
after five years of national standards. Retrieved
from https://create.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2019/03/CREATE-OOHC-In-Care-2018-
Report.pdf.
Cripps, K., Bennett, C.M., Gurrin, L.C., &
Studdert, D.M. (2009). Victims of violence among
Indigenous mothers living with dependent
children, Medical Journal of Australia, 19(1), 20-31.
Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre
Australia[CIRCA]. (2014). Evaluation of
NSW Aboriginal Child and Family Centres.
Sydney, NSW: Department of Family and
Community Services.
Cuneen, C. (2015). Neoliberalism, settler
colonialism, and the history of Indigenous child
removal in Australia. Australian Indigenous Law
Review, 19(1), 20-31.
Cunneen, C. & Libesman, T. (2002) Removed and
Discarded: The Contemporary Legacy of the Stolen
Generations. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter,
7(4), 1-20.
Delfabbro, P.H., Barber, J.G., & Cooper, L. (2003).
Predictors of short-term reunification in South
Australian substitute care. Child Welfare, 82(1),
27-51.
Denato, R., & Segal, L. (2013). Does Australia
have the appropriate health reform agenda to
close the gap in Indigenous health?, Australian
Health Review, 37(2), May, 232-238.
Department of Communities (WA). (2017).
Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation
Strategy to 2022. Retrieved from https://www.
dcp.wa.gov.au/ChildrenInCare/ Documents/
ACCO%20Strategy%20to%202022. Pdf.
Department of Health and Human Services.
(2019a). The proportion of Aboriginal unborn
child protection reports progressing to OOHC – 2
year data. Unpublished report to the Aboriginal
Children’s Forum.
Department of Health and Human Services.
(2019b). Unborn child reports. Retrieved
from https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/
policies-and-procedures/phases/intake/
unborn-child-reports
Department of Health and Human Services.
(2019c). Child Protection Manual. Retrieved
from https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/
advice-and-protocols/specialist-resources/
family-led-decision-making.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(2017). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Performance Framework 2017 Report. Retrieved
from https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/
publications/2017-health-performance-framewo
rk-report_1.pdf
Department of Social Services. (2018).
Submission to the House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal
Affairs’ inquiry into a nationally consistent
framework for local adoption in Australia.
Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/
Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Localadoption/
Submissions
Dockery, A. (2010). Culture and wellbeing: the
case of Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators
Research, 99(2), 315-332.
Drywater-Whitekiller, V. (2014). Family Group
Conferencing: An Indigenous Practice Approach
to Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act,
Journal of Public Child Welfare 8(3), p260- 278.
Dworsky, A., Courtney, M.E., & Zinn, A. (2007).
Child, parent, and family predictors of child
welfare services involvement among TANF
application families. Children and Youth Services
Review, 29(6), 802-820.
Eades, S. (2004). Maternal and child health care
services: Actions in the primary health care setting
to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander women of childbearing age, infants
and young children. Darwin: Menzies of School
Health Research.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 97
 Evans, G. (2006). Child development and the
physical environment. Annual Review Psychology,
57, 423-451.
Family Matters. (2017). Family Matters Report
2017. Melbourne: SNAICC.
Family Matters. (2018). Family Matters Report
2018. Melbourne: SNAICC.
Fernandez, E., & Lee, J.S. (2013). Accomplishing
family reunification for children in care: An
Australian study. Children and Youth Services
Review, 35(9), 1374-1384.
Fox S., Southwell, A., Stafford, N., Goodhue, R.,
Jackson, D., & Smith, C. (2015). Better systems,
better chances: A review of research and practice
for prevention and early intervention. Canberra:
The Australian Research Alliance for Children
and Youth.
Frederico, M., Jackson, A., & Dwyer, J. (2014).
Child protection and cross-sector practice: An
analysis of child death reviews to inform practice
when multiple parental risk factors are present.
Child Abuse Review, 23(2), 104-115.
Gibberd, A.J., Simpson, J.M., Jones, J., Williams,
R., Stanley, F., & Eades, S.J. (2019). A large
proportion of poor birth outcomes among
Aboriginal Western Australians are attributable
to smoking, alcohol and substance misuse, and
assault. Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19, 1-10.
Goddard, C., & Bedi, G. (2010). Intimate partner
violence and child abuse: A child-centred
perspective. Child Abuse Review, 19, 5-20.
Hartley, C. (2004). Severe domestic violence and
child maltreatment: Considering child physical
abuse, neglect, and failure to protect. Children
and Youth Services Review, 26(4), 373-392.
Heckman, J. (2008). The Case for Investing
in Disadvantaged Young Children. Retrieved
from http://www.heckmanequation.
org/content/resource/case-investing
disadvantaged-youngchildren
Holland, C. (2015). Close the Gap, progress and
priorities, 2015. Sydney: Closing the Gap Steering
Committee.
Hughes, M. (2018). Poverty as an adverse
childhood experience. North Carolina Medical
Journal, 79(2), 124-126.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: Report
of the National Inquiry into the Separation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from
their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, pp. 453-454.
Humphreys, C. (2007). Domestic violence and child
protection: Challenging directions for practice.
Sydney: Australian Domestic & Family Violence
Clearinghouse.
Ipsos and Winangali. (2017). Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander family-led decision-making.
Retrieved from https://www.snaicc.org.au/
wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Evaluation_Report_
ATSIFLDM-2018.pdf.
Jenkins, B.Q., Tilbury, C., Hayes, H., & Mazerolle,
P. (2018). Factors associated with child protection
recurrence in Australia. Child Abuse & Neglect,
81, 181-191.
98 FAMILY MATTERS
Jonson-Reid, M., Drake, B., & Zhou, P. (2013).
Neglect subtypes, race, and poverty: Individual,
family and service characteristics. Child
Maltreatment, 18(1), 30-41.
Kiraly, M. & Humphreys, C. (2011) ‘It is the
Story of All of Us’: Learning from Aboriginal
Communities about Supporting Family Connection.
Retrieved 1 August 2019 from https://
healthsciences.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0012/2586639/Report-2-Family-LinksA
boriginal-kinship-care.pdf.
Klein, E., and Razi, S. (2018). Contemporary tools
of dispossession: the cashless debit card trial
in the east Kimberley. Retrieved from https://
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Poverty/
DigitalTechnology/University_of_Melbourne_
Appendix.pdf.
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (Eds). (2016). Indigenous
data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. Canberra:
ANU Press.
Lavoie, J. et al (2010). Have investments in
on-reserve health services and initiatives
promoting community control improved First
Nations’ health in Manitoba?, Social Science and
Medicine, 71(4), August, 717.
Lee, S., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2012).
Foster care re-entry: Exploring the role of foster
care characteristics, in-home child welfare
services and cross-sector services. Children and
Youth Services Review, 14, 1825-1833.
Leslie, B. (2005) Housing issues in child
welfare: A practice response with service
and policy implications. In J. Scott & H.
Ward (Eds.), Safeguarding and promoting the
well-being of children, families and communities
(pp. 213-227). London, Philadelphia: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Lewis, N. CEO of the Queensland Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection
Peak, SNAICC Conversations: Family Matters,
7 May 2019, panel. Retrieved from https://
www.facebook.com/familymattersau/
videos/2172722326152538/.
Libesman, T. (2011). Cultural care for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home
care. Melbourne: SNAICC.
Libesman, T., & McGlade, H. (2018, 26
May). We are perpetuating a sorry history
of Aboriginal child removals. The Guardian:
Australia Edition. Retrieved from https://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/26/
we-are-perpetuating-a-sorry-history-of-aborigin
al-child-removals
Lohoar, S., Butera, N., & Kennedy, E. (2014).
Strengths of Australian Aboriginal cultural
practices in family life and child rearing. Retrieved
3 August 2019 from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/
sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca25.
Pdf
Markham, F., & Biddle, N. (2018). Income,
poverty and inequality: 2016 Census paper 2.
Retrieved from penresearch repository.anu.edu.
au/bitstream/1885/145053/1/CAEPR_Census_
Paper_2.pdf
McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G., & Gordon, J.
(2013). Deep and persistent disadvantage.
Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Retrieved
from https://www.pc.gov.au/research/
supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantage/
deep-persistent-disadvantage.pdf
Moore, T., Arefadib, N., Deery, A., &
West, S. (2017). The First Thousand Days:
An evidence paper. Parkville: Central
For Community Child Health. Retrieved
from https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/5d1563ccaaafe00001ca3d2c/t/5d3
3fa4550f69e0001f6cbc3/1563687515548/
First1000DaysAustralia_CCCH-TheFirstThousan
dDaysAnEvidencePaper.pdf
Morris, K., et al. (2018). Social work, poverty and
child welfare interventions. Child & Family Social
Work, 23(3), https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12423
Mouzos, J., & Makkai, T. (2004). Women’s
experiences of male violence: Findings from the
Australian component of the International Violence
Against Women Survey. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
National Centre for Education and Training
on Addiction. (2014). Child and family sensitive
practice in the alcohol and other drugs sector.
Retrieved from http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/
files/3614/0894/8514/EN553.pdf
National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal
Health. (2017). Housing as a social determinant
of First Nations, Inuit and Métis health. Retrieved
from https://www.ccnsa-nccah.ca/docs/
determinants/FS-Housing-SDOH2017-EN.pdf
National Family Violence Prevention Legal
Service, SNAICC, & Human Rights Law Centre.
(2019). Putting single mothers last: the economic
injustice of ParentsNext. Retrieved from https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8
f5b2dabbe4291/t/5c5a46feeb3931523e32b565
/1549420292771/HRLC+SNAICC+and+NFVPLS
+submission+to+Parents+Next+inquiry.pdf.
NSW Family and Community Services. (2018a).
NSW Government submission to House of
Representatives Standing Committee Inquiry into
Local Adoption. Retrieved from https://www.aph.
gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/
House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/
Localadoption/Submissions
NSW Family and Community Services. (2018b).
About the Permanency Support Program.
Retrieved from https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/
families/permanency-support-program/about
NSW Ombudsman. (2011). Addressing Indigenous
Disadvantage: the need to do things differently.
Sydney: Author.
O’Donnell, M., Taplin, S., Marriott, R., Lima, F.,
& Stanley, F.J. (2019). Infant removals: The need
to address the over-representation of Aboriginal
infants and community concerns of another
‘stolen generation’. Child Abuse & Neglect, 90,
88-98.
Paradies, Y., & Cunningham, J. (2012). The
DRUID study: Exploring mediating pathways
between racism and depressive symptoms
among Indigenous Australians. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1, 165-173.
Parkinson, P. (2003). Child protection,
permanency planning and children’s right to
family life. International Journal of Law, Policy and
the Family, 17(2), 147-172.
Parliament of Australia. (2019). ParentsNext,
including its trial and subsequent broader rollout.
Retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/
parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMI
TTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F1f67a6
9b-b34f-4aee-83cb-872f0b3ef877%2F0003;query
=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F1f67a6
9b-b34f-4aee-83cb-872f0b3ef877%2F0000%22
Pascoe, S. & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our
Game: Report of the Review to Achieve Excellence
in Australian Schools though Early Childhood
Interventions. Canberra: ACT Education
Directorate.
Phillips, J., & Vandenbroek, P. (2014). Domestic
and family violence in Australia: An overview of the
issues. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
Pine, B.A., Spath, R., Werrbach, G.B., Jenson,
C.E., & Kerman, B. (2009). A better path to
permanency for children in out-of-home care.
Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1135-1143.
Productivity Commission. (2014). Childcare
and early childhood learning. Inquiry Report
No. 73 (Vol. 2, p. 525). Canberra, ACT:
Productivity Commission.
Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Protection Peak. (2018). Position statement
for Aboriginal kinship care. Retrieved from https://
www.qatsicpp.com.au/images/ CPP-POSITION-S
TATEMENT-KINSHIP-BK.pdf.
Reid, N., Dawes, S., Shelton, D., Harnett,
P., Warner, J., Armstrong, E., LeGros, K., &
O’Callaghan, F. (2015). Systematic review of
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder interventions
across the life span. Alcoholism, Clinical and
Experimental Research, 39(12), 2283-2295.
Reupert, A., & Maybery, D. (2007). Families
affected by parental mental illness:
A multiperspective account of issues
and interventions. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 77(3), 362-369.
Ritte, R., Panozzo, S., Johnston, L., Agerholm,
J., Kvernmo, S., Rowley, K., & Arabena, K. (2016).
An Australian model of the First 1000 Days: An
Indigenous-led process to turn an international
initiative into an early-life strategy to benefiting
Indigenous families. Global Health, Epidemiology
and Genomics, 1. doi:10.1017/gheg.2016.7
Robinson, E., & Adams, R. (2008). Housing stress
and the mental health and wellbeing of families.
AFRC Briefing No. 12. Canberra: Australian
Family Relationships Clearing House.
Sheets, J., Wittenstrom, K., Fong, R., James,
J., Tecci, M., Baumann, D., & Rodriguez, C.
(2009). Evidence-based practice in family group
decision-making for Anglo, African-American
and Hispanic families. Children and Youth Services
Review, 31, 1187-1191.
Slack, K., Holl, J., McDaniel, M., Yoo, J., & Bolger,
K. (2004). Understanding the risks of child
neglect: An exploration of poverty and parenting
characteristics. Child Maltreatment, 9, 395-408.
Slack, K., Lee, B.J., & Berger, L.M. (2007). Do
welfare sanctions increase child protection
system involvement? A cautious answer. Social
Service Review, 81(2), 207-228.
SNAICC. (2010). Working and walking together:
Supporting family relationship services to work with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and
organisations. Melbourne: Author.
SNAICC. (2012). Genuine Participation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in
Child Protection Decision-making for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Children A Human Rights
Framework. Melbourne: Author.
SNAICC. (2013). Whose Voice Counts: Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander participation in child
protection decision making. Retrieved from
https://www.snaicc.org.au/ wp-content/
uploads/2015/12/03197.pdf.
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children.
(2016a). Achieving stability for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home
care. Retrieved from https://www.snaicc.org.au/
wp-content/uploads/2016/07/SNAICC-Achieving_
stability.pdf
SNAICC. (2016b). Submission on inquiry into the
provisions of the Family Assistance Legislation
Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package)
Bill 2015. Melbourne: Author.
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children. (2017).
Understanding and Applying the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle.
Melbourne: Author.
SNAICC, NFVPLS, & NATSILS. (2017). Strong
families, safe kids: Family violence response
and prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and families. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalfvpls.org/images/files/
SNAICC-NATSILS-NFVPLS_Strong_Families_
Safe_Kids-Sep_2017.pdf
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children.
(2018). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Placement Principle: A guide to support
implementation. Retrieved from https://www.
snaicc.org.au/the-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-is
lander-child-placement-principle-a-guide-to-su
pport-implementation/
Snijder, M., & Kershaw, S. (2019). Review of
methamphetamine use among Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. Australian
Indigenous Health Bulletin, 19(3), 1-30.
Sparling, J., Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2007).
The Abecedarian Experience. In E. Young (Ed.),
Early childhood development from measurement
to action: A priority for growth and equity (pp.
81–99). Washington DC: World Bank Group.
Steering Committee for the Review of
Government Service Provision [SCRGSP]. (2018).
Report on Government Services 2018. Canberra,
ACT: Productivity Commission.
Steering Committee for the Review of
Government Service Provision [SCRGSP]. (2019).
Report on Government Services. Canberra:
Productivity Commission.
Taplin, S. Prenatal reporting to child protection:
Characteristics and service responses in one
Australian jurisdiction. Child Abuse & Neglect,
65, 68-76.
The Healing Foundation. (2013). Growing our
children up strong and deadly. Melbourne, Vic:
Author.
The Healing Foundation. (2019). A theory of
change for healing. Retrieved from https://
healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/healthinfonet/
getContent.php?linkid=619987&title
=A+theory+of+change+for+healing
The Healing Foundation & White
Ribbon Australia. (2017). Family violence
prevention framework. Retrieved from:
https://healingfoundation.org.au/
white-ribbon-day-report/
Tilbury, C., Burton, J., Sydenham, E., Boss, R.
& Louw, T. (2013) Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Child Placement Principle: Aims and Core
Elements. Melbourne: SNAICC.
Tilbury, C. (2015). Moving to prevention research
report: Intensive family support services for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Melbourne: SNAICC.
Tilbury, C., & Osmond, J. (2006). Permanency
planning in foster care: A research review and
guidelines for practitioners. Australian Social
Work, 59(3), 265-280.
Tomison, A. (2000). Exploring family violence:
Links between child maltreatment and domestic
violence. Issues in Child Abuse Prevention,
13. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family
Studies.
Trudgett, M., & Grace, R. (2011). Engage with
early childhood education and care services: The
perspectives of Indigenous Australian mothers
and their young children. Kulumun: Journal of the
Wollotuka Institute, 1(1), 15-36.
UN General Assembly. (2007). United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Resolution. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.
org/docid/471355a82.html
UNICEF. (2010). Adapting a systems approach to
child protection: key concepts and considerations.
New York: Author.
Victorian Aboriginal Children & Young People’s
Alliance, Alliance Submission to Productivity
Commission into the Social and Economic Benefits
of Improving Mental Health (2019) <file:///
Users/macbook13k/Downloads/VACYPA%20
Submission%20to%20Productivity%20
Commission%20%20(1).pdf
Warren, E.J., & Font, S.A. (2015). Housing
insecurity, maternal stress and child
maltreatment: An application of the Family
Stress Model. Social Service Review, 89(1), 9-39.
Williams, R. (2017). Understanding Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder through the stories of Nyoongar
families and how this may inform policy and service
delivery (Unpublished thesis, Curtin University).
Willis, M. (2011). Non-disclosure of violence in
Australian Indigenous communities. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 99
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: PROJECTION OF OVER-
REPRESENTATION IN OUT-OF-HOME
CARE BY STATE AND TERRITORY
DISPROPORTIONALITY BY STATE/TERRITORY
Figure A1 shows the percentage increase of the out-
of-home care population in each of the states and
territories from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2018, with
the red bars indicating increases of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander population and the green bars
that of non-Indigenous population.
In all jurisdictions, the percentage increase in the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-of-home care
population exceeds that of the non-Indigenous out-
of-home care population. In the Northern Territory,
the non-Indigenous out-of-home care population
actually shrank by more than 13.6% while the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-of-home care
population increased by more than 90.2%. Victoria
and the Australian Capital Territory exhibit the largest
percentage increase among the jurisdictions, with
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-of-home
care population more than doubling. Queensland and
New South Wales exhibit the smallest percentage
increase in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
out-of-home care population among the jurisdictions.
However, New South Wales has the largest increase in
number of children (an increase of 2935 children) and
thus contributed the most to the national increase (an
increase of 8063 children).
CHANGES IN THE OUT-OF-HOME CARE
POPULATION RELATIVE TO CHANGES IN THE
GENERAL POPULATION OF CHILDREN BY
TERRITORY
In view of the fact that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander population of children age birth to 17 in all
jurisdictions increased by only 6.6% from 2010-11
to 2017-18, on average – ranging from 0.4% in the
Northern Territory to 11% in Victoria – the percentage
increase of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
out-of-home care population is highly disproportionate
to the percentage increase of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander general population of children. This
disproportionality is most pronounced in the Northern
Territory, where the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
100 FAMILY MATTERS
Islander general population increased by only 0.4%
while the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-
of-home care population increased by 90.2%, giving a
ratio of 225.5 times. In Victoria, the percentage increase
in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander out-of-
home care population is almost 15.0 times that of the
percentage increase in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander general population. The disproportionality
across other jurisdictions is 23.6 times in Western
Australia, 19.5 times in the ACT, 8.1 times in Tasmania,
12.5 times in South Australia, 10.0 times in New South
Wales, and 3.3 times in Queensland.
Figure A2 shows the ratios of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander and non-Indigenous out-of-home care
population projections across the states and territories,
using the normalised Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander and non-Indigenous populations in 2018 as
a starting point. Once again, the projected Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous out-
of-home care populations in each jurisdiction were
calculated using the average annual population growth
rate in each jurisdiction from 2010-11 to 2017-18.
The ratios indicate the disparate and widening gaps
between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and
non-Indigenous out-of-home care populations. A value
of one indicates that the ratio of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander and non-Indigenous populations would
be maintained at the 2018 level if nothing were done to
change the observed growth rate. In this estimation,
if nothing is done to change the current trend – the
disparity in rate ratio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander and non-Indigenous populations in the
Northern Territory will be 3.1 times as serious as it
was in 2018. While a 10-year projection is a long-term
estimate that may not come to pass, it does serve as a
stark reminder of how serious and urgent the problem
is and how each year-delay in remedying the disparity
compounds the problem. In Tasmania, the rate ratio
in 2028 is projected to reach more than 2.5 times the
2018 level if the observed pattern of growth does not
change. In the other jurisdictions, the ratios range from
1.2 in New South Wales to 1.7 in the ACT. Regardless
of the magnitude, the message is clear: in order to
stop the growing disparity in rates of out-of-home care
between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-
Indigenous children changes need to happen in each
and every jurisdiction.
 FIGURE A1 Percentage increase of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children in out-of-home
care, by jurisdiction, 2011-18

Percentage increase of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Increase IslanderPopulation
in OOHC and non-Indigenous children in out-of-home care,
by jurisdiction, 2011-18
from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2018
180%

150%

120%

Indigenous
90%
Percentage
Percentage

Non-Indigenous

60%

30%

0%
Tas
Qld
Vic

WA

SA

ACT

NT

Australia
NSW

-30%

Aboriginal
Number of children on Third-party Parental Responsibility and
Order Torres
added Strait data
to OOHC Islander
for NSW, VIC and WANon-Indigenous
for consistency reason.
Source: Tables 16A.1 and 16A.2 from Chapter 16 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2019) ; Child Protection Australia (AIHW, 2016 to 2019)
Number of children on Third-party Parental Responsibility Order added to OOHC data for NSW, VIC and WA for consistency reason.
Source: Tables 16A.1 and 16A.2 from Chapter 16 Child protection services (SCRGSP, 2019) ; Child Protection Australia (AIHW, 2016 to 2019)

FIGURE A2 Projections of rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children in
out-of-home care, by jurisdiction, 2018-28

Ratio of Non-indigenous and Indigenous OOHC Population Projections

Projections of rate ratios of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous children in
out-of-home care, by jurisdiction, 2018-28
3.5 Ratio of Non-indigenous and Indigenous OOHC Population Projections
3.5

3.1
3.1
3 3 NSW NSW

VIC
VIC
QLD

2.5 2.5 QLD

WA
2.5
2.5 SA WA
Ratio
Ratio

TAS
SA
Ratio

2 ACT

NT TAS

2 1.7
ACT
1.5 1.5
1.5
NT
1.3
1.2 1.7

1
1.5 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
1.5
1.5
Year
Year 1.3
1.2

1
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 101
Year
 APPENDIX II: METHOD FOR THE
PROJECTION SCENARIO
The projections of out-of-home care population shown
in Figure 6 were calculated using the average annual
population growth rates (APGR). Theoretically, a more
complex model that is dynamical (is a function of time
and space) and state-dependent (i.e., the population
in each year depends on the population in previous
periods) may be constructed and used in projecting
future populations. However, due to the limitation of
data and the lack of well-verified population dynamics
models, only the APGR is used for projections.
The aim is to show one possible path of population
growth for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and
non-Indigenous children in out-of-home care,
assuming that each population will continue to grow
at the APGR based on the years 2010-11 to 2017-18.
Lower and upper limits of the projected populations
were estimated using the minimum and maximum
APGR of the respective populations from the same
period. This provides a good perspective on what to
expect if the APGR is different from the mean APGR.
For ease of interpretation, all numbers in the model
have been scaled to a base population of 1000 (i.e., there
are far more non-Indigenous children in the Australian
population, so growth rates were standardised to a base
population of 1000 in order to facilitate the comparison
of growth rates within each population). There are also
several important caveats that are listed in Appendix III.
These caveats highlight that the figures presented in the
scenario have to be interpreted with caution. Due to the
simplified nature of the projections, the figures shown
in the example may not come to pass.
102 FAMILY MATTERS
APPENDIX III: CAVEATS FOR THE
PROJECTION SCENARIO
Caveats as a result of the model restrictions:
• To avoid problems due to changes in the counting
rules. Only data from recent years (2010-11 to 2017-
18) were used to obtain the APGR for out-of-home
care populations. Therefore, the figures we present
are merely gross estimates and may change as data
are improved and extended.
• States and territories exhibit very different trends
and legislation differs significantly between States
and territories. An example is the introduction of a
new policy in New South Wales, which led to a sharp
increase in discharges of children to guardianship
from out-of-home care as part of the Safe Home For
Life legislative reforms (AIHW, 2016).
• In New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia,
children on third-party parental responsibility
order (or equivalent orders) have been excluded
from the counts of children in out-of-home care.
In order to create a consistent time series of
out-of-home care population, on consultation
with AIHW (private communication by email),
we have added the number of children on third-party
parental responsibility order to the count of children
in out-of-home care for New South Wales (2014-15
onward, Victoria (2017-18), and Western Australia
(2015-16 onward).
• Unlike more complex models, the scenarios
presented in the projections do not explicitly
incorporate the re-enforcing feedback from exits to
notifications via re-reports. This shortcoming is due
to the fact that we have no data on the nature and
timing of re-entry to out-of-home care.
• Restricted by the availability of data, the current
model used in pathway scenarios does also not
account for any system capacity constraints.
In other words, the model allows the population of
children in out-of-home care to grow without limit.
As this assumption is unlikely to hold in reality,
the trajectories in the model have to be interpreted
with this shortcoming in mind. This is particularly
relevant for figures that are projected further into
the future.
APPENDIX IV: METHOD FOR THE REPORT
CARD TABLE
The Report Card table on page 14 makes a subjective
assessment of highlights and lowlights and a
corresponding traffic light designation in relation to
state and territory progress on aligning legislation,
policy and practice with each of the four building blocks
of the Family Matters campaign. Assessments are
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-sector
led and have been developed with review and input of
state Family Matters jurisdictional representatives
and peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies,
where they exist.
The methodology interrogated specific data points
in the report that align most accurately to each of
the building blocks when considering the framework
detailed in the Family Matters Roadmap. A number of
data points in the Family Matters report are not provided
by jurisdiction and, as a result, these were excluded
from the Report Card assessment. In line with the
campaign’s commitment to support self-determination,
commentary provided in the Community Voices section
of this report has been given significant weight
in making assessments. The specific data points
considered in identifying highlights and lowlights were:
• Building Block 1: Prevention and early intervention
investment and service access data, including early
childhood education and care; child protection
system over-representation and investment
in community-controlled prevention and early
intervention. Australian Early Development Census
(AEDC) outcomes data was not included.
• Building Block 2: Resourcing of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander representative organisations
to participate and enable family participation in
case decisions; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peak body roles in policy design; delegation of
statutory functions to ACCOs; investment in
ACCO service delivery.
• Building Block 3: Placement of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander carers and kin; rates of
reunification; permanency reform safeguards for
cultural connection; programs for cultural support
planning and implementation; ACCO out-of-home
care case management roles and delegation of
statutory functions; resourcing of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peak body roles in sector
development.
• Building Block 4: Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander system reform oversight and monitoring
bodies, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander representative bodies and children’s
commissioners; development of strategies to
address over-representation and monitoring and
evaluation approaches; provision of additional data
requested to inform the Family Matters report.
ENDNOTES
i This table is up to date as at 6 August 2019.
ii Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT).
iii Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
(NSW).
iv Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT).
v Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld).
vi Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 (SA).
vii Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (Tas).
viii Children Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).
ix Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA).
THE FAMILY MATTERS REPORT 103
104 FAMILY MATTERS
www.familymatters.org.au

Strong communities. Strong culture.

Stronger children.